Dynaverse.net

Taldrenites => General Starfleet Command Forum => Topic started by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 09:07:17 am

Title: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 09:07:17 am
I'd like to "close" the previous correction thread and start on a new one. I will probably use this thread as a kind of "notepad", writing down my own thoughts in here, as well as listening to yours.


.. For starters:
People want addtional model separation. For example, they want model separation for anything that use the same model, but are in different races.

ie: Assets/Models/KFF is being used by the Klingons, the Romulans *AND* The Korgath Cartel. If all 3 could use their own Model path and mod files, modders could assign different models, textures, etc to each.

ie: Someone wanted the Romulan MegaHawk (from R7) added to OP+. I've skipped over it because it was shown with fighters, but am currently rethinking that I could work around it: The MegaHawk is only shown with fighter modules attached. I could probably figure out the BPV difference of attaching E modules, and turning this thing into a full PFT. (Ship description states which modules couldn't be assigned)  ..

ie: Some people don't like the textures on some of the modules I have picked for OP+ 3.0 ..  .. like how the KE4, KD5 and KD5W aren't using the klingon textures, but grey blah textures. Telling me that a model's texture is crap isn't good enough. Asking me to do Textures isn't good enough either as I've never even done this before.. but you can voice your opinions here.

ie: I've been carefulyl chosing models to put together the 3.0 package. If you think there's a better model, yet identical, model for a ship, I want to hear about it. Don't go overboard. A high number of poligons on a ship canslow down the game. I want to know why that model is better than the one I already picked.

ie: You've found a good model for me. Put a URL for download, please! I may already have it, or seen it... but I will look probably look at it anyways.


-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Pestalence on August 02, 2003, 10:09:59 am
Firesoul, have you looked at the models in the D2 model pack by P81 and Athrahasis?

if not, then you can DL the pack here at :

http://www.nightsoftware.com/effhq/scr2.html

at the bottom of the page... these ships i think are FASA and i have both a High res pack and Low Res pack.. contains Roms, Fed, and Klink ships...

 Thanks

PS.... for some reason to me, it seems that the models you added only show up in Heavy Cruiser selections for each race... I may be wrong, but that is how it seems to me... Is there separation based upon hull Size? I mean a XFG should be in the Friggits (which it is.. but using as an example) and not heavy cruisers... I might be wrong on this and have just set it up wrongly... I'll check again later....


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on August 02, 2003, 11:42:35 am
Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 02, 2003, 01:09:13 pm
Well, if you want to use my L9 re-skin and my Fed DD model, you are welcome to them:




There is a re-skin of the F5 for the Romulan Empire (in the other thread - has blue feathers), and a tri-nacelle version of each F5 for the F6/KFR.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 02, 2003, 01:13:03 pm
Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...





Whoah - where did you get that improved Ark Royal (Fed CV)?  I couldn't fine one, and that looks *fine*!
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 01:17:16 pm
Quote:

Firesoul, have you looked at the models in the D2 model pack by P81 and Athrahasis?

if not, then you can DL the pack here at :

http://www.nightsoftware.com/effhq/scr2.html

at the bottom of the page... these ships i think are FASA and i have both a High res pack and Low Res pack.. contains Roms, Fed, and Klink ships...

 Thanks

PS.... for some reason to me, it seems that the models you added only show up in Heavy Cruiser selections for each race... I may be wrong, but that is how it seems to me... Is there separation based upon hull Size? I mean a XFG should be in the Friggits (which it is.. but using as an example) and not heavy cruisers... I might be wrong on this and have just set it up wrongly... I'll check again later....





The there of this mod is SFB accuracy, without sacrificing Taldren's style. In other words, if the Taldren model does the job, then I don't replace it. Of course, there are some exceptions:

1- The Taldren D5s are plain ugly, IMHO. Some people have complained about the D5s I am now using, but the problems aren't anything I can't fix.

2- I never understood why the old-style models were never used by Taldren, onolder ships. That's why I made sure I have older models for some Federation ships, and matching updated (TMP) versions which are more in Taldren's style.
ie: FECA, FEDD, FEFF, FTG  -->  FCA, FDD, FFF, FTG+(I guess I should make those FETG and FTG)

3- Some of the Taldren models weren't "cool" enough.. Like the Gorn replacements.. or some individual ships I might've replaced.


Another function of the mod is to indeed separate the ship classes, in case people (such as some of you) want to put in their own models. Heck, why don't you put together your own modelpacks for use with this project?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 01:25:22 pm
Quote:

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?  




It's actually 2 SkyHawk and 2 SparrowHawk modules.. and the ship description says no F (mauler) or J (PlaS) modules.
That leaves: EK, MK, .. I am not fully familiar with the other modules config. I'll have to think about it.

PS. There seems to be a lighter version of the Modular DN ( a DNL ) called a OmniHawk. That could use the same modules.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 01:27:59 pm
Quote:


Well, if you want to use my L9 re-skin and my Fed DD model, you are welcome to them:





Thank you. I downloaded it this morning, actually. I don't think I'll be using it since it changes the style a bit, but I like the idea.
Idea: Add a 3rd engine to the back of Taldren's F5 BoP to make a F6/KFR variant... what do you think? That would certainly match the style.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 01:30:59 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...





Whoah - where did you get that improved Ark Royal (Fed CV)?  I couldn't fine one, and that looks *fine*!  




 Here, I think.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 02, 2003, 03:03:44 pm
I was referring to Renegade's CVA http://mywebpages.comcast.net/renegade001//gallery/SCR00024.htm.  Looks like an improvement over the Taldren model (a little).

Anyway, few more suggestions from my little ship-mill here.

First, a D2 model for F-POL:


And a modified D2 model for the rest - chosen because it has all the right attributes for the Fed FF - two warp engines, small, and can be easily modified into the DW and HDW hulls.  (This is the FASA 'Baker'-class, btw)





   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 06:02:51 pm
The F-POL is TNG.

.. but I *do* like the HDW and will have to compare mine with it. Where can I download it from?
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 02, 2003, 06:31:46 pm
EDIT: Uploading now, it'll be done in a moment.  Link here.  I will upload another one tomorrow - but this one is mostly correct.  I need to tweak the break models some, and I'd like to move the hardpoints around some.  These will certainly work fine, though, and should look in-game exactly as the 'finished' ones will.

And that F-POL is not TNG - it's the 'Grissom' model, seen in 'Star Trek III'.  In fact, it was seen first on screen before the Excelsior was.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on August 02, 2003, 06:42:50 pm
The R-KWR is using the Snipe frigate model, the KR UI, is in the Light Cruiser section and it is classified as a New Heavy Cruiser. That's one mixed up ship. This is in the DL without models.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on August 02, 2003, 06:46:55 pm
I dont see the D5W listed in any of the ship libraries or skirmish/Co-op ace selection screens....I see it in the shiplist though.....

!?!

I'll check it out again...  

Oh yeah...No model DL....
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 08:39:12 pm
Quote:

The R-KWR is using the Snipe frigate model, the KR UI, is in the Light Cruiser section and it is classified as a New Heavy Cruiser. That's one mixed up ship. This is in the DL without models.  




Confirmed. I just updated the download since it doesn't affect or break anything.
This affects the no-models installer only.

How to fix yourself, if you don't want to redownload/reinstall:
Copy the contents of Assets/Models/KCL to opplus/models/RD5W and opplus/models/RD5
Rename the .mod files within these destination directories to "rd5w.mod", "rd5w_brk.mod" and "rd5.mod", "rd5_brk.mod"


OR..

Redownload/Reinstall.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 08:40:18 pm
Quote:

I dont see the D5W listed in any of the ship libraries or skirmish/Co-op ace selection screens....I see it in the shiplist though.....

!?!

I'll check it out again...  
Oh yeah...No model DL....




Look under heavy cruisers. It's a "New Heavy Cruiser", after all.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on August 02, 2003, 11:38:13 pm
F-PV and F-PV+ have wrong model links.  Shiplist linking to FPC.MOD but there is no model folder called that.   No model shows up when playing game.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 12:03:47 am
Quote:

F-PV and F-PV+ have wrong model links.  Shiplist linking to FPC.MOD but there is no model folder called that.   No model shows up when playing game.  




Oh. Aiie. Ok.
I'll update the installer(s), it will not be in "model.siz" just yet. That way the game will remain compatible to all.

One can also put in some model in there temporarily. It was supposed to be another copy of the FPOL/FPOL+ directory.

-- Luc


Edit: Temporary fix now included in updated installer, if that's easier for you. No changes done to 5 primary files (those that are checked for differences between hosts) so this is the same shiplist version.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on August 03, 2003, 12:08:44 am
Quote:

Whoah - where did you get that improved Ark Royal (Fed CV)?  I couldn't fine one, and that looks *fine*!  




That Fed CVA is by Gow aka Jrstandfast. Most of his models can be had at StarFleet Universe, but it looks like that ones not there. If you have issues finding it, drop me a line.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on August 03, 2003, 12:32:10 am
I linked the F-PV to the F-POL+ model manually.  Is there actually a police carrier model?

Few questions:

1)  Did you mean to link the F-FFT, F-CFF, and F-CFF+ to the taldren frigate model?

These next two are preference-type questions:

2)  I think the F-DN should be an old Federation Class model, and the F-DN+ on down should be the USS Star League version.  This is the type of pattern you followed with the F-CA, F-DD, etc. ship classes.  I can understand the F-BB still linking to Taldren model since it was conjectural and would have been in TMP era style.

3)  The F-CVL is a F-GSC, why not link it to the Taldren F-CA model?  I think the carrier model you have is cool looking, but it is kinda too different from a F-GSC look......ya know what I'm sayin'.  I kinda feel the same way about the F-CVS which is derived from the F-CA also.  Again this is just preference and I can always change it myself....so no biggie.

I do like most of your reasoning in Fed model selection so far.  I like what you did with the F-NCL class and making the F-NCM the actual Miranda class with the torp bar added.  That made it a nice match for Kirk and his F-CA+ in the Wrath of Khan movie.  I also think the Soyuz class works well as an NCA.

Excellent shiplist.....now on to "scrutinizing" the klingons.    
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 12:50:49 am
Quote:

I linked the F-PV to the F-POL+ model manually.  Is there actually a police carrier model?

Few questions:

1)  Did you mean to link the F-FFT, F-CFF, and F-CFF+ to the taldren frigate model?





Uh.. no. It's supposed to be different. Oh well, next version.. which will be a while.


Quote:


These next two are preference-type questions:

2)  I think the F-DN should be an old Federation Class model, and the F-DN+ on down should be the USS Star League version.  This is the type of pattern you followed with the F-CA, F-DD, etc. ship classes.  I can understand the F-BB still linking to Taldren model since it was conjectural and would have been in TMP era style.




Histerical Raisins.. uhh.. Historical Reasons. In SFB, the F-DN gets upgraded to a DN+ and later to the DNG. Do you have a triple-warp TMP-style FDN? I didn't see any. Same thing for the BB. Do you have a 4-warp FBB in both the TOS and TMP styles? (I think there's a TOS-style on FleetDock 13)

Quote:


3)  The F-CVL is a F-GSC, why not link it to the Taldren F-CA model?  I think the carrier model you have is cool looking, but it is kinda too different from a F-GSC look......ya know what I'm sayin'.  I kinda feel the same way about the F-CVS which is derived from the F-CA also.  Again this is just preference and I can always change it myself....so no biggie.





Ah.. well.. to tell you the truth it was just because it looked cool. It still looks kinda like a CA too, but you're right that it can be switched back through some copying.

Quote:


I do like most of your reasoning in Fed model selection so far.  I like what you did with the F-NCL class and making the F-NCM the actual Miranda class with the torp bar added.  That made it a nice match for Kirk and his F-CA+ in the Wrath of Khan movie.  I also think the Soyuz class works well as an NCA.




Agreed.  


-- Luc

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 03, 2003, 02:17:26 am
Quote:

Do you have a triple-warp TMP-style FDN?




What, like this?



(This, btw, is from my old shiplist whereby I added an X-DN with a pair of 'Heavy Photon' launchers - in blue)  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 06:27:05 am
That would make a perfect TMP FDN. I'll see if I already have it or not.

ie: here's the TOS FDN I'm looking at. According to the Fed DN+ description, its refit was "so extensive that it is listed as a separate class." So These 2 models would indeed do the trick.
 

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 07:24:21 am
It doesn't look like I have that TMP FDN. Do you know where I can find it?
Edit: don't forget to let me know who made it.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 03, 2003, 08:19:58 am
Firesoul,

Check out Skinman?s great stuff:

http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/leigons/Founders/ISC.htm

X-ICL = ISC Tug  (X-ICA is too dark when you d/l)

X-IDN = ISC Monitor

http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/leigons/Founders/HYDRAN.htm

The Blackhawk is pretty cool too.

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 09:00:00 am
The ICL doesn't quite look like a tug, but I'm sure it could be modified to become so. It's a good starting point.
Thank you. ;>
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on August 03, 2003, 11:15:31 am
Quote:

Do you have a triple-warp TMP-style FDN?
-- Luc
   




Is this your looking for?
It's by P81. I don't know if he's still among us or giving permissions to his material, but this is a good looking Ascension.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 01:28:08 pm
http://www.frost-works.com/schtupp/capitalships.htm

I think that DN+ is Lord Schtupp's creation.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 03, 2003, 02:38:00 pm
FIreSoul, would you mind looking into the L-NCAL (or variants)? I would have expected anything with that designation to be replaced by the new SFB L-NCC specs. I haven't looked through the other races' lists, either. Are the old Taldren NCCs and NCALs replaced or retained? If retained, I would suggest they be restricted so players are using the balanced NCCs by default.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 02:45:59 pm
Quote:

FIreSoul, would you mind looking into the L-NCAL (or variants)? I would have expected anything with that designation to be replaced by the new SFB L-NCC specs. I haven't looked through the other races' lists, either. Are the old Taldren NCCs and NCALs replaced or retained? If retained, I would suggest they be restricted so players are using the balanced NCCs by default.  




The NCAL and the DWC have been retained. I don't mind setting them to R.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 02:47:27 pm
Quote:

http://www.frost-works.com/schtupp/capitalships.htm

I think that DN+ is Lord Schtupp's creation.

   




That's the TOS FDN I showed. I'm looking for the one I've been shown above by dderidex.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 03, 2003, 03:09:36 pm
Sorry about the delay, I have it posted now (it's mine - it's base on the P81 BB that comes with the 'D2 Model Pack' that's been around forever.  I redid the mesh some, removed a warp engine, tinkered with the impulse and secondary hull, etc - and retextured the saucer to reflect the DN designation and name rather than BB).

Anyway, here is the DN I showed above.

Also, be sure to pick up the latest frigate/dw pack.  I've updated the models quite a bit - higher poly base mesh to work from, added torpedoes to them, improved break models and hardpoints.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 03:14:20 pm
Ya, OK. I was puzzled since you showed the screen capture it was a strong indication you had it. That dreadnought I would wager is a unique ship. I don't remember seeing it anywhere but that DDeridex will be able to accomodate you as it might be his kitbash. Also, check your email. I sent some pics of a line of missing Gorn stuff. Some of those have gone missing over time. Especialy one I don't have a jpeg of. Reply if interested, ignore if not. Probably best to stick with Feral's stuff since he has about everything covered.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 03:19:36 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Do you have a triple-warp TMP-style FDN?
-- Luc
   




Is this your looking for?
It's by P81. I don't know if he's still among us or giving permissions to his material, but this is a good looking Ascension.  




Do you know where I could find this one too?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 03:29:43 pm
Quote:

Ya, OK. I was puzzled since you showed the screen capture it was a strong indication you had it. That dreadnought I would wager is a unique ship. I don't remember seeing it anywhere but that DDeridex will be able to accomodate you as it might be his kitbash. Also, check your email. I sent some pics of a line of missing Gorn stuff. Some of those have gone missing over time. Especialy one I don't have a jpeg of. Reply if interested, ignore if not. Probably best to stick with Feral's stuff since he has about everything covered.  




Yes, I downloaded Lord Schtupp's. The current ideas I'm having concerning Federation DNs are the following:
F-DN from Lord Schtupp
F-DN+ from p81 as linked above by SPQR Renegade001. (please link/send)
F-DNG (and variants) from dderidex
F-BB by p81 (which I have found)

In that order, the upgrade path would both be SFB accurate and look nice (yeah, the simple requirements.  )


BTW, those are very nice gorns that would do great X2 ships... but yes, I will stick with the ones from FeralYards.
Thanks!
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 03:48:59 pm
You are so right. Feral did us a huge favor with all of those varients he did. He just about made the Hydran, Lyran and LDR plug and play. How cool is that?

I have a question for you. I pretty much deleted all of the scout and commando ships from my library to make the list tidy. The thought struck me that perhaps I killed some specific ships that might be called upon in some scennarios. Do I have a reason to worry?

Edit; If you would like I could forward a copy of the Ascencion. Never mind, I managed to read where you requested as much. Should be there in a bit.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 04:18:20 pm
Thank you. ;>
I've found something very very similar in the sfcd2_hr.exe installer. It's especially interesting since the FDN from Lord Schtupp is marked as the NCC 2101 and this TMP refit is marked as the 2101-A. However, it's not as cool as the Ascension. (will have to look at both side-by-side)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Lepton1 on August 03, 2003, 04:24:17 pm
Quote:

Quote:

http://www.frost-works.com/schtupp/capitalships.htm

I think that DN+ is Lord Schtupp's creation.

   




That's the TOS FDN I showed. I'm looking for the one I've been shown above by dderidex.




His models are some of the best.  Any TOS ship in the mod should have his name on it.  I mean what a kick-ass model.  WOW!!
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on August 03, 2003, 04:51:25 pm
 
Quote:

  I've found something very very similar in the sfcd2_hr.exe installer




I believe the best TMP "3 nacelle" DN model is from Pneumonic's D2 Mod high res model pack.  There is a USS Star League model that is perfect for a F-DN+ in my opinion.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 05:18:11 pm
Quote:

 
Quote:

  I've found something very very similar in the sfcd2_hr.exe installer




I believe the best TMP "3 nacelle" DN model is from Pneumonic's D2 Mod high res model pack.  There is a USS Star League model that is perfect for a F-DN+ in my opinion.  




Bingo.
This is the result:

F-DN+ (Left), F-DN (Center), F-DNG (right)
 

Of course, that will only be included in the next release.
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 06:05:47 pm
The D2 mod is truely nice. I tend to think the Ascencion is  the  choice for the Federation DNL. I mucked with the textures a bit as it was a conversion from a nonillunibated model and you can tell if you start to look at it. My personal choice is for nonilluminated warps. As far as I can tell that is a TNG developmant. Certainly not TMP era.  

Edit: Pitfalls to avoid in model selection. Since your going throught the process of selecting the best models you can get for the class I wanted to share something I learned to do. Take a look at the size of the folder that contains the new dreadnought by P81. It's 10.4 Meg of goodness. The problem that presents is you try to load too many such models it will bog the game down. Slow refresh rate and short hangs when sound events play. You can salvage some models by grey scaling and even reducing the size of the illumination maps. Even some of the seldom seen texture maps like the undersides of the model can be reduced to 256 x 256.  I was able to reduce that one to 8.9 without touching the main textures. Still too big. Most computers can't deal with many of that size model. Even if you do have a smoking video card.  I usualy won't use a model over 4 Meg for this reason. And 20-35 Meg is getting pretty common. Looks great in a model viewer but you better have massive video bandwidth to play it. Just something to consider when looking at stuff.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 03, 2003, 06:08:32 pm
 Dderidex, thank you for the link to P81's Explorer Class FBCH, I have a several versions that were kitbashed by Dark Matrix to include a Reliant style and a 3 engine DN version with a roll bar over the saucer. I will use this for Mirror Universe Imperials, LOL.  BTW: Any problem with those Baker Class kitbashes will be added to the FASA to SFC Collection? I'm almost ready for an update (a day or two).

Firesoul, since many of these additional ships are straying from the Taldren-wanna-be mode I thought I'd repitch that many of the Klingon Academy ships were converted into SFC and should be considered for use. The Suvwl' Qeh makes a great KCX, LOL and the Klingon Academy Tholians are too cool to ignore:



Besides, I have an entire race block based on Klingon Academy Tholians. I'm just waiting for Peter Davies to get my site up and running

Somebody post a link to P81's Ascension please. [I have his Yorktown and his Star League] How could I have missed that one?  One more MUST HAVE for the P81 collection, LOL.

I prefer Atrahasis' version of the Ascension (it uses P81 textures and has a more accurate deflector dish and overall build).

Qapla!

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on August 03, 2003, 08:14:43 pm
 
Quote:

 Bingo.
This is the result:

F-DN+ (Left), F-DN (Center), F-DNG (right)
 




Yep that works.  This should give the "Fed dreads" some good model variation to represent refits visually.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 03, 2003, 09:09:44 pm
Few more ships, no download yet, but soon.

Fed FF and FFB.  I liked the Taldren layout of the FF, but wanted to use the Grissom as the POL, and the Bakers (as above) as the DW/HDW.  Needed a transition craft, so, made one:





Would fit in this mod pretty good, IMHO.  Of course, anyone else is welcome to any of the kitbashes/retextures/ships I do - I really am not very anal about permissions and such.  Just credit my work and the original author's in the readme, and I don't care what you do with it.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 09:33:23 pm
Quote:


Edit: Pitfalls to avoid in model selection. Since your going throught the process of selecting the best models you can get for the class I wanted to share something I learned to do. Take a look at the size of the folder that contains the new dreadnought by P81. It's 10.4 Meg of goodness. The problem that presents is you try to load too many such models it will bog the game down. Slow refresh rate and short hangs when sound events play. You can salvage some models by grey scaling and even reducing the size of the illumination maps. Even some of the seldom seen texture maps like the undersides of the model can be reduced to 256 x 256.  I was able to reduce that one to 8.9 without touching the main textures. Still too big. Most computers can't deal with many of that size model. Even if you do have a smoking video card.  I usualy won't use a model over 4 Meg for this reason. And 20-35 Meg is getting pretty common. Looks great in a model viewer but you better have massive video bandwidth to play it. Just something to consider when looking at stuff.




When you're reducing the sizes of the BMPs, are they being stretched to match the model?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 10:19:24 pm
Stretched to match the model? To clarify, say your looking over a set of 512 x 512 bmp's. They can easily be resized to 256 x 256 and will map properly. Or even 128 x 128 or 64 x 64. I think the way the things lay are by relative coordinates on the bitmap. I'm pretty sure any binary multiple will work (eg 32,64,128,256...etc.) Another trick is reducing the color depth. Many illumination maps were never reduced to a gray scale to reduce the data. Not hard to knock a 796k texture down to 66k sometimes. Times 4 textures and you can reduce a 5.5 Meg model down to a more managable 2.8 Meg. And in many instances can't detect it unless you look at it at just the right angle with the model viewer. And in game fat chance if your selective with the textures you play with. This makes a huge difference playing some of Nuclearwessel's fleet actions. You start adding up some of the models plus the game engine and it dawns on you why the game stutters or pauses to load a sound event. There is a reason why the Taldren models are 2 Meg or less.

You can even do this with some main textures with no or little loss of detail. I got into the habit of doing this when installing new models recently. Once your used to it it can be done in few minutes time and I believe it is worth the investment to keep everything running smoothly. The first thing I look at is the illumination maps and usualy use MS paint to stretch/skew by a new ratio And PSpro to reduce color depth or convert to grey scale. They always seem to map correctly if I keep the same proportions (ie reducing by 25%, 33%, 50%, 66%.... whatever, so long as I do so in the vetical and the horizontal) but I think any video set up will handle it so long as it's a standard size (ie 32x32,64x64,128x128... etc.) I just want to hedge here in case someone finds their video driver won't map a 96x96 map. Mine has no problem mapping a 512x512 main texture with a 64x64 illumination map.  Hope that helps.    
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 10:25:29 pm
If a model is mapped to use "file1.bmp" .. and there's also:
file1_2.bmp  (1/2 size)
file1_3.bmp  (1/4 size)

.. will the game use these other sizes for when the ship is at a distance?
.. Or were these merely provided so that players can swap in their own choices?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 03, 2003, 10:36:01 pm
Those are for when the ship is at a distance, yes.  SFC2/OP can support up to 3 different LOD models for various ranges - the model's mesh, though, must include essentially 3 different copies of the same ship.  Since the game can use these models at extreme ranges, the designers took advantage of this fact and did 3 different models at descending polygon counts and smaller and smaller textures.

Honestly, though, this isn't a big enough savings to be worth it, IMHO.  Trippling the amount of work a modeller has to do to support older video cards is well and good for Taldren to do, but I never bother.  Indeed, on most the kitbhashes I do, if there is multiple LOD models in the mesh, I just delete them and use the highest quality one.  The poly count really isn't that different - it will never make a difference (at least, not anymore).  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 10:41:11 pm
The LOD's are selected strictly at given distances. Meaning it uses say CA_1_1, CA_1_1i, CA_1_2, CA_1_2i...etc. from distance 0 to x. Switches to set CA_2_1, CA_2_1i, CA_2_2, CA_2_2i... etc. from distance x to point y. Perhaps a third set if provided. I've only noticed models with up to 3 levels of detail. I don't know if the model itself determines this or works together with the engine to save video processing. Not my field of understanding. I really wonder if LOD's consume more video RAM but have to assume that is the reason they exist.

Edit: I read DDeridex's post and havt to say I'm using a lower performance video card. I have a 64Meg ATI and experience some stutters when a fairly large number of high res models are loaded. One on one scirmish no. NW's base defense... get's pretty jittery. Should I upgrade to a smoking new video card? Sure, I will sometime or another. Till then...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 11:57:06 pm
I am aiming towards "medium" quality models..
.. because the large large sized models affect both the game, and the size of the package.

Edit:
Guh. The Romulan StarHawk PF model from FeralYards was taking 2.3 mb by itself. I reduced the size of the .BMPs. That should help loadtimes a bit when launching PFs. I'll also check the other PFs I downloaded from there.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 04, 2003, 04:23:28 am
Ok.. .. now to the next part of the changes: Klingon ships.

I've been thinking about splitting up the KDNs into separate models. There's 2 ways I can do that:
- include models for some or all of the KDNs, but each DN class gets its own model.
- copy the somewhat acceptable model from the Taldren directories, one model per DN class all identical.


This would allow those of you who like to mod everything to be able to do so. The different classes would be:

      KDN -> KC9/KC8/KC5  (Klingon Fanatic's 3-warp DN would fit in really well. KF, would you send it to me?)
      KC6 -> KEDN  (only the warps could be in TOS style. The rest has to be like the others since a C6 upgrades to a C9, later. If there was a way to put TOS-style engines on a model like the one KF uses, I'd be very happy.)
      KDNH -> KC10  (thinking of using the stock Taldren model for this one. Not SFB accurate but would look nice here.)


I already have a model for the B11K. (KSBB). The B10's own model is acceptable.  I am also planning to change the B10V's UI and Model to use same as the normal B10's.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 04, 2003, 10:16:20 am
It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 04, 2003, 10:54:38 am
Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 04, 2003, 10:57:52 am
Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recentlycause I just figured it went C7 - C8 - C9 in combat effectiveness. It also said the C7 is classified as a dreadnought. I bet FireSoul knew this.    
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 04, 2003, 10:58:45 am
Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




The C8 and the C9 are so close to each other, the distinction is very minor.
The C7 is actually a completely different class.


So.. Who's got models?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 04, 2003, 11:17:13 am
Quote:

Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




The C8 and the C9 are so close to each other, the distinction is very minor.
The C7 is actually a completely different class.


So.. Who's got models?  




There is a good C5 model here:

http://www.nightsoftware.com/erasofwar/index.html

in the shipyards/klingon/middle/dreadnaughts section.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 04, 2003, 11:36:25 am
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




The C8 and the C9 are so close to each other, the distinction is very minor.
The C7 is actually a completely different class.


So.. Who's got models?  




There is a good C5 model here:

http://www.nightsoftware.com/erasofwar/index.html

in the shipyards/klingon/middle/dreadnaughts section.  




That site would be good.. if it wasn't down so much. I quite capable of maintaining a more reliable site hosted on a 486, much less the dual PII I have at home for server. Jeez.. they're running a httpd server on a windows box, aren't they.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 04, 2003, 01:34:32 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




The C8 and the C9 are so close to each other, the distinction is very minor.
The C7 is actually a completely different class.


So.. Who's got models?  




There is a good C5 model here:

http://www.nightsoftware.com/erasofwar/index.html

in the shipyards/klingon/middle/dreadnaughts section.  




That site would be good.. if it wasn't down so much. I quite capable of maintaining a more reliable site hosted on a 486, much less the dual PII I have at home for server. Jeez.. they're running a httpd server on a windows box, aren't they.




Yeah, it's a bear getting anything off of that site but they are very nice models.  If you want me to send it to you in E-mail just PM me you address and when I get home I'll send it to you.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 04, 2003, 02:34:53 pm
FireSoul, I'll go ahead and send it. About 820k zipped. Should be in the pipeline.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 04, 2003, 04:51:37 pm
Quote:

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  




And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.


I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.


I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 04, 2003, 04:55:24 pm
Quote:

 can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen




Really?  See, I always liked the FASA L-9, and I like my TMP-texture of it for the F5 (see the first page of this thread).  Maybe just me?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 04, 2003, 04:58:07 pm
Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




If you fly Klingon much at all, you'll know the C9 and its cariants is huge steaming pile of doo-doo and the C8s are most definitely an upgrade, but still not incredibly good.  C10K and C5s are the preferred DN types.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 04, 2003, 07:53:20 pm
Oh, Now you tell me. Where were ya when the Kzinti were disrespecting my D5W? Besides, disruptors just don't leave that crisp smell of hot ozone I crave so much. Not like an enveloping torp when your opponent's shield facings are just about all gone. You can turn but you can't hide.

We now return you to our regularly schedualed topic  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 04, 2003, 09:54:09 pm
Quote:

Quote:

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  




And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  




That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 04, 2003, 10:08:48 pm
Firesoul,

Please e-mail me so I can fire off the KDN of JrStandfast's I retextured if you still want it.

Qapla!

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Bonk on August 05, 2003, 01:44:22 am
I just did an uninstall (after uninstalling OP+ 3) and clean install of OP last night and after the uninstall I noticed some model folders left over. I'm not sure if they were from your mod, but you may want to double check the uninstaller to see if any were missed.

Is there a rationale for putting custom model folders in the root of the Assets\Models folder? I have put all the custom model folders in the mod I'm working on in one subfolder under Assets\Models.  Are people using the root of the Assets\Models folder to avoid swelling the size of the shiplist file? Is it detrimental to use one subfolder which increases the shiplist file size?

It makes the uninstall easier for me, I remove all the models added with my mod with one line in the NSIS uninstall section:
RMDir /r "$INSTDIR\Assets\Models\SFB_OP"
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 05, 2003, 06:44:31 am
Quote:

I just did an uninstall (after uninstalling OP+ 3) and clean install of OP last night and after the uninstall I noticed some model folders left over. I'm not sure if they were from your mod, but you may want to double check the uninstaller to see if any were missed.

Is there a rationale for putting custom model folders in the root of the Assets\Models folder? I have put all the custom model folders in the mod I'm working on in one subfolder under Assets\Models.  Are people using the root of the Assets\Models folder to avoid swelling the size of the shiplist file? Is it detrimental to use one subfolder which increases the shiplist file size?

It makes the uninstall easier for me, I remove all the models added with my mod with one line in the NSIS uninstall section:
RMDir /r "$INSTDIR\Assets\Models\SFB_OP"  




I dunno. It's really all up to what you think is proper. Me, since I have more than just models, I put everything under opplus/. Then, from there, I copy the shiplist files.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 05, 2003, 12:30:52 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  




And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  




That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.  




If you'll take a closer look, the nose section of the boom has changed rather substantially, and its size is much bigger.


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN.  Can't help ya there...lol.





 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 05, 2003, 02:44:00 pm
Quote:


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN. Can't help ya there...lol.





I know, but it's small details like that which makes all the difference. I could just pick any model and slap 'em on, but if given some effort, things can actually become accurate and more pleasurable.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 05, 2003, 04:16:25 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  




And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  




That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.  




If you'll take a closer look, the nose section of the boom has changed rather substantially, and its size is much bigger.


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN.  Can't help ya there...lol.





 




But Dog, don't forget this part:

  For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.

the result is that the C5 gets it's own floder......perfect.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: RazalYllib on August 05, 2003, 05:47:29 pm
Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

This is by no means a complaint or any disatisfaction with the fabulous work FS has done for all of us,  just an observation on the 'historical' source material.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 05, 2003, 05:56:01 pm
Quote:

Quote:


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN. Can't help ya there...lol.





I know, but it's small details like that which makes all the difference. I could just pick any model and slap 'em on, but if given some effort, things can actually become accurate and more pleasurable.  




I think the main point I'm trying to make is that it follows the Klingon "look" for everything from a D6 on up to (in this case) a C5 or other DN...yet is it BIGGER, has another warp nacelle (which is correct) and is sufficiently different on the boom section as to easily differentiate it from any D7 you're likely to see.  It's even clearly NOT a C7 with a center warp nacelle slapped on.


Of course, it's a matter of taste and we always have the option of putting our own models in (which is why I didn't apply the OP+ model pack, just the shiplist).  


I am merely offering up a suggestion regarding a very nice model that "fits" within the Klingon style rather nicely.


I really haven't seen too many custom Klingon DNs out there.  The only other Klingon "big ship" models I like are Gow's reworks of the KCV and KBB.  There's never any shortage of cool Fred models...but most of the other races don't have much to choose from.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Jwest on August 05, 2003, 06:12:19 pm
Just having an "It seems to me" moment regarding X-weapons, which you are of course welcome to ignore. I like the way you've set an upgrade cycle between X1 and X2 ships, but it occurs to me that there's a logical predecessor to the X1 ships - Bases. Presumably before the miniaturization of these enhanced weapons (and shields, and powersources) is sufficient to put them on ships, these weapons would be available for defense outposts, base stations, and starbases. Or even Planetary Defense bases.

Just a thought - but wouldn't a generation X2 Starbase be a nasty thing to encounter in your shiny new Xcruiser - <G>  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Fahrenheit on August 05, 2003, 06:13:08 pm
Quote:

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.





How about 4 PF's?  8 fighters is 2/3 of a squadron, 4 PF's is 2/3 of a squadron (in SFB).  If PF squadrons are generally smaller in SFC, then how about 2?  I just don't care for odd-numbered PF flotillas, except, of course, on the ChickenHawk.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: RazalYllib on August 05, 2003, 07:46:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.





How about 4 PF's?  8 fighters is 2/3 of a squadron, 4 PF's is 2/3 of a squadron (in SFB).  If PF squadrons are generally smaller in SFC, then how about 2?  I just don't care for odd-numbered PF flotillas, except, of course, on the ChickenHawk.

 




4 seems way too many for what was essential a Command Cruiser variant of the Firehawk with fighter bays welded on.
3 would be more like it.

Romulans fielded them as generic Command Cruisers, with a little extra bite.

The later upgrades to the basic Firehawk designs were either quick jury rigged replacements for destroyed DNs ie Regal, Thunder, and Killer, or speciallty ships like the Imperial Standard.

In F&E, the Command Rating of the Superhawk is 9, a nice number btw for its bpv.  Also the fighter inherant in the Command Ship, does not count against the Command Rating limits.

For the non F & E crowd, the Command Rating determines how many ships a designated Flagship, could effectivley participate in a combat round.  The value (9) determines how many ships can fight at once.  The Flagship MUST be one of the three ships with the highest combat rating. Regular Cruisers had only 8 for comparison.  War Cruisers 7 and so on...
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Lepton1 on August 05, 2003, 08:50:09 pm
Quote:

Quote:

 can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen




Really?  See, I always liked the FASA L-9, and I like my TMP-texture of it for the F5 (see the first page of this thread).  Maybe just me?  




Hey, is that you playing IL2 in your sig??  How does that system work for you with IL2??
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 04:21:18 am
Quote:

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

This is by no means a complaint or any disatisfaction with the fabulous work FS has done for all of us,  just an observation on the 'historical' source material.  





I'm not going to put PFs because a certain ship has fighters, sorry. I will however look for E modules for it, and see what can be done. The fighters that were in the rear hull have been changed to shuttles.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 06:08:26 am
The following screenshot (you know it well) is of the Taldren stock PFF (LR: Light Raider).
 


I did the following this morning, trying to produce a passable PDBR (DBR: Double Light Raider). What do you think?
 
 


This is part of my first attempts at using 3ds (trial version).
-- Luc


PS. My GF thinks it's 2 ships humping each other. I think she has a dirty mind.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 06:56:35 am
I think I've made my choices for the KDNs. Here they are.

1- Appearing as the KDN and KC6 models: (separated in case someone wants to use a different model for a KC6)
This will server for KC6, KC9, KC8 and refits.
 

2- For the KC5, where the SSD clearly shows a reduction in hull boxes and other systems in both rear and front
 

3- For the bastard ship that doesn't fit anywhere till I saw this misproportioned monster, the KB8:
(FYI, the SFB K-B8 is a B10 boom on a K-C8 rear hull. It was designed in case of economic problems. This is also why it has no ADDs in SFB, since the B10 boom and the C8 rear hull didn't house the ADDs: their other halves did.)
 


So far, the current KBB will be used for the B10, and the op+3.0 model ( KSBB ) will be used for the B11.


Comments?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: RazalYllib on August 06, 2003, 07:08:20 am
Understand FS, no problem.

Putting E modules on it defeats the purpose of my suggestion.

Go ahead and keep it as is.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 07:24:06 am
I also want to show you work in progress. I guess I have no talent at texturing, but I did at least come up with a good looking design. I have shared it with EmeraldEdge (who made the KTUG, the LTUG, the LLTT and the HLTT). Again, this is work in progress.
Say hello to my proposed htug:

 
 
   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Fahrenheit on August 06, 2003, 10:18:28 am

I thought the DBR had two hulls side-by-side, not top-and-bottom?


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 10:51:23 am
Quote:


I thought the DBR had two hulls side-by-side, not top-and-bottom?


 




Yes, but that didn't look as good. This way, I also preserve UI compatibility, and it looks better.
Also, the SSDs never could show what's above and below properly, so who knows?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Holocat on August 06, 2003, 01:34:54 pm
Uh, I hope this isn't lost in all the model talk, but I've got a CTD to report.

the F-PV+ in the nonmodel OP 3.0 pack is TINY.  If fact, it was so small I couldn't get a good look at it;  I'm not sure if a model was even there.

In mission on SSII the PV+ was:
1. unseen as any kind of model (not a black model, I mean NO model)
2. crashed after a few moment's time.

To confirm, did a single player skirmish with my ship as the PV+:
1.  I was not able to see the starfield, the enemy, or for that matter anything other than the buttons controling my ship.  Could target the klingons and give all normal orders though.
2.  As soon as I attempted to launch fighters, the game crashes to desktop.

I'm not sure precisely what's wrong, but it dosen't look like the PV+ is pointing to a model.  Please check.

yummy bugs,

Holocat.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Lepton1 on August 06, 2003, 01:46:22 pm
Could someone confirm for me that there are some intentionally hinky ships in the hydran ship list that have heavies with I guess it is RA arcs  or is this an error of some sort??  I was flying something like an HDDV or something like that and it had two rear firing hellbores which I thought was a bit silly.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Strafer on August 06, 2003, 01:54:23 pm
Those would be the Heavy War Destroyers, and yes they do have a pair of RA mounts for any weapons that fit.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 01:57:23 pm
Quote:

Uh, I hope this isn't lost in all the model talk, but I've got a CTD to report.

the F-PV+ in the nonmodel OP 3.0 pack is TINY.  If fact, it was so small I couldn't get a good look at it;  I'm not sure if a model was even there.

In mission on SSII the PV+ was:
1. unseen as any kind of model (not a black model, I mean NO model)
2. crashed after a few moment's time.

To confirm, did a single player skirmish with my ship as the PV+:
1.  I was not able to see the starfield, the enemy, or for that matter anything other than the buttons controling my ship.  Could target the klingons and give all normal orders though.
2.  As soon as I attempted to launch fighters, the game crashes to desktop.

I'm not sure precisely what's wrong, but it dosen't look like the PV+ is pointing to a model.  Please check.

yummy bugs,

Holocat.  





I know. I updated the packages after that bug was found. When did you download yours? ..
.. anyways, the manual "at your end" fix was posted somewhere in 1 of the OP+ threads.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 01:59:36 pm
Quote:

Could someone confirm for me that there are some intentionally hinky ships in the hydran ship list that have heavies with I guess it is RA arcs  or is this an error of some sort??  I was flying something like an HDDV or something like that and it had two rear firing hellbores which I thought was a bit silly.  




Yep. I didn't make those up either.
Fed: HDW
Klingon: HF5
Romulan: SBH
Gorn: HBD
ISC: HDD
Lyran: HDD
Hydran: HDW, LNH
Mirak: HDW
Orion: HDW

Look for them.. and look at the nice rear weapons.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Holocat on August 06, 2003, 02:08:39 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Uh, I hope this isn't lost in all the model talk, but I've got a CTD to report.

the F-PV+ in the nonmodel OP 3.0 pack is TINY.  If fact, it was so small I couldn't get a good look at it;  I'm not sure if a model was even there.

In mission on SSII the PV+ was:
1. unseen as any kind of model (not a black model, I mean NO model)
2. crashed after a few moment's time.

To confirm, did a single player skirmish with my ship as the PV+:
1.  I was not able to see the starfield, the enemy, or for that matter anything other than the buttons controling my ship.  Could target the klingons and give all normal orders though.
2.  As soon as I attempted to launch fighters, the game crashes to desktop.

I'm not sure precisely what's wrong, but it dosen't look like the PV+ is pointing to a model.  Please check.

yummy bugs,

Holocat.  





I know. I updated the packages after that bug was found. When did you download yours? ..
.. anyways, the manual "at your end" fix was posted somewhere in 1 of the OP+ threads.  




Odd.  If your OP+ 3.0 isn't the one SSII is using, why am I able to log on?  Model pointers in the shiplist are checked for identity, or so I thought was implied some time ago...

in any event, will redownload your OP+ pack now,

Holocat.

EDIT: pointer exists, model dosen't.  Strafer told me.  Dangit.  

EDIT:  Updated, no further problems.  Sorry for ringing the alarm.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 02:50:03 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Uh, I hope this isn't lost in all the model talk, but I've got a CTD to report.

the F-PV+ in the nonmodel OP 3.0 pack is TINY.  If fact, it was so small I couldn't get a good look at it;  I'm not sure if a model was even there.

In mission on SSII the PV+ was:
1. unseen as any kind of model (not a black model, I mean NO model)
2. crashed after a few moment's time.

To confirm, did a single player skirmish with my ship as the PV+:
1.  I was not able to see the starfield, the enemy, or for that matter anything other than the buttons controling my ship.  Could target the klingons and give all normal orders though.
2.  As soon as I attempted to launch fighters, the game crashes to desktop.

I'm not sure precisely what's wrong, but it dosen't look like the PV+ is pointing to a model.  Please check.

yummy bugs,

Holocat.  





I know. I updated the packages after that bug was found. When did you download yours? ..
.. anyways, the manual "at your end" fix was posted somewhere in 1 of the OP+ threads.  




Odd.  If your OP+ 3.0 isn't the one SSII is using, why am I able to log on?  Model pointers in the shiplist are checked for identity, or so I thought was implied some time ago...

in any event, will redownload your OP+ pack now,

Holocat.

EDIT: pointer exists, model dosen't.  Strafer told me.  Dangit.  

EDIT:  Updated, no further problems.  Sorry for ringing the alarm.  




Exactly. The "5 important files" that are checked/CRCed didn't need to be changed. I updated the installers with a copy of the FPOL+ model for the FPV. No biggie, right?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 06, 2003, 06:39:48 pm
How about a topical post?

Here's a real correction: H-MKI (Mohawk-I New Command Cruiser) should have 4xPh1, but instead has 4xPh2. If I were a Hydran, I'd be unhappy seeing Ph2 and no Ph1 on an NCC, especially for the BPV. Any hope of a fix before SS2?

Not an error, but odd: the H-CVE is 56 BPV, which jives with the SFB 48 plus 8 for 4 fighters. However, I thought you had said something about using the economic BPV in some cases (for the CVE, it's 68 plus 8 would be 76). In a stock Met_10Patrol (not sure of difficulty factor on matching in .gf), I got put up against a fearsome K-E3DR (2xDroC, 1xADD12, 4xPh3) and then a K-G2CR ... oops ... found another one ... G2CR has Ph3 when it should have an ADD12 post-Y175 and never had Ph3. Anyway, both were cake walks, not unsurprisingly, when I had 4xHornet.III and the CVE's PhGs and lone Ph2. Also waxed a PR with a PlasF in the same mission for good measure. No damage taken in either engagement, no shields lost, no fighters lost. Heck, the Klingon AI fired drones once total in the 2 missions.

Anyway, I wonder if the 68 base BPV would be better for that ship, though certainly Klingon frigates are not going to give anyone a decent fight.

So:

H-MKI should have 4xPh1
H-CVE BPV in question
K-G2CR (and other G2Cs?) should have ADD
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 07:23:06 pm
Thanks Nomad,

In my defense:
H-MKI: I didn't input the R10 and J2 ships. You and Strafer did.   (although thanks guys.)
The H-CVE is a Taldren ship, so it fell into the "if you encounter a problem you want fixed, just let me know" category.
The G2CR is like the CVE. When I increased the #reloads on the G2C, I didn't really care to check it.


Those will be fixed soon enough, but no I won't be fixing it just for SS2. SS2 will do fine without it.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 06, 2003, 07:41:17 pm
No complaints -- it's just that it would be nice if someone with loads of time on their hands could go through the entire list and verify all the little things. Unfortunately, who has the time? So it goes.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 09:04:32 pm
Quote:

No complaints -- it's just that it would be nice if someone with loads of time on their hands could go through the entire list and verify all the little things. Unfortunately, who has the time? So it goes.  




Time? Yes.
Interest? Hell no.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 06, 2003, 11:25:24 pm
Minor niggle:

For the Fed hulls with a DD ship schematic (DD, DW, CL, etc.) - you have them using rear hardpoints 14 and 15 all the time.  There are three rear hardpoints - 14 is center, 15 left, and 16 right.  Since you are only using 14 and 15 in the data, it puts the right phaser (typicall) in the center of the hull and the left side phaser on the left where it should be.  Looks kinda silly.  I'd put the left phaser on the left spot (15) and the right phaser on the right spot (16) and leave 14 empty.  At least, that way, the ship schematic in-game would look symetrical.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 03:17:25 am
Quote:

Minor niggle:

For the Fed hulls with a DD ship schematic (DD, DW, CL, etc.) - you have them using rear hardpoints 14 and 15 all the time.  There are three rear hardpoints - 14 is center, 15 left, and 16 right.  Since you are only using 14 and 15 in the data, it puts the right phaser (typicall) in the center of the hull and the left side phaser on the left where it should be.  Looks kinda silly.  I'd put the left phaser on the left spot (15) and the right phaser on the right spot (16) and leave 14 empty.  At least, that way, the ship schematic in-game would look symetrical.  




I'd have to look at it.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 06:02:43 am
Wanted:

1- KDD texture to make it look Romulan (K-F5 -> R-K5R). I already have a good looking KFF for the part.
2- a Romulan texture for the KDN I picked. The one KF has in his screenshot looks nice for the job too. :P~
3- a heavier-looking sparrowhawk model, for the rom HDW .. the SBH.


I might find #3 at my end, but #1 and 2 might be harder to find.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 07, 2003, 08:05:27 am
Quote:

I also want to show you work in progress. I guess I have no talent at texturing, but I did at least come up with a good looking design. I have shared it with EmeraldEdge (who made the KTUG, the LTUG, the LLTT and the HLTT). Again, this is work in progress.
Say hello to my proposed htug:

 
 
   




Sweet! Can I have this NOW??? Does this mean Emerald Edge's tug can be bumped to the Monitor slot? LOL Great job Firesoul.

Hey D'deridex, please send me the Romulan T-10 you modified.

Qapla!

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 08:30:58 am
Obviously, the colors (above) on the pod is wrong. I've applied a generic texture to it for now.

 

You can download it from here:
 http://klingon.stasis.ca/models/hydran/fs_htug.zip

What the heck.. share and share alike.

-- Luc

PS. Should I post this to the Models' forum?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 09:16:04 am
Quote:

Wanted:

1- KDD texture to make it look Romulan (K-F5 -> R-K5R). I already have a good looking KFF for the part.
2- a Romulan texture for the KDN I picked. The one KF has in his screenshot looks nice for the job too. :P~
3- a heavier-looking sparrowhawk model, for the rom HDW .. the SBH.

I might find #3 at my end, but #1 and 2 might be harder to find.  




Never mind. I have everything in hand. I have downloaded the trial version (60 days) of PaintShop Pro and figured out its color manipulations. Why retexture, when you can modify what you already have?

For example, I've taken the KDN that was sent to me, and made a RKDN. Compare:
Before:
 

After:
 


I will be doing the same to the other ships.  
-- Luc
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 10:08:21 am
KDD -> RK5R
   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 07, 2003, 10:17:58 am
Thank you Firesoul. Yes you should post these on the model forum too.

Qapla!

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 10:27:08 am
Even the one you sent me, that I modified? Is that okay?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 07, 2003, 11:07:37 am
Quote:

Even the one you sent me, that I modified? Is that okay?  




ABSOLUTELY! You did a great job Romulanizing it. Please post a link soon. Anything I've retextured you are welcome to.

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 11:13:38 am
Done. Go check the Models forum.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 07, 2003, 11:28:30 am
Quote:

Done. Go check the Models forum.  




I have a RKDD you should add, not that yours is bad mind you. I took TheDuctTapeWonder's version at his site:

http://www.tgp-bs.ca.tc/



 [NOTE: this is TDTW's pic not mine]

I added KFT GUN textures to make the wing guns standout better. I can send it to you if you want. Also, the SHATTERED UNIVERSE game takes the same model and makes the "wing guns" mini-warp engines.

Qapla!

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 12:09:02 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Done. Go check the Models forum.  




I have a RKDD you should add, not that yours is bad mind you. I took TheDuctTapeWonder's version at his site:

http://www.tgp-bs.ca.tc/



 [NOTE: this is TDTW's pic not mine]

I added KFT GUN textures to make the wing guns standout better. I can send it to you if you want. Also, the SHATTERED UNIVERSE game takes the same model and makes the "wing guns" mini-warp engines.

Qapla!

KF  




Thank you. I downloaded it. To me, that means I didn't lose any time even if a ship I wanted was found.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 07, 2003, 02:16:27 pm
Another ship spec error/question:

Is the Z-CMX given 2xPh1 by design, or is it an oversight, perhaps an automated arc replacement fix that accidentally replaced PhXes with Ph1s?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 04:02:57 pm
hm. most probably a copy-paste mistake related to the new arcs. Thanks.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 07:37:04 am
I just got Atra-Hasis' permission to modify and use a ship of his.
Y'see, I'm replacing the D5 variants curently in use in OP+ 3.0 with these better models. Unfortunately, there was nothing to replace the D5H, so I made one using his D5 and a pod create by EmeraldEdge:

 
Download:  http://klingon.stasis.ca/models/klingon/fs_kltt.zip

The D5W and KDR can be found on SFU. Swap the textures on both and you get a DWR and a plain D5. Add the above model, and you have the whole set. You may have to rename some files/directories to match my current settings. It should be safe to replace the 3.0 models with these as long as you don't touch the 5 textfiles.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Gamester on August 08, 2003, 09:25:29 am
Firesoul - I just wanted to bring to your attention (just in case you were unwae of it) that the new Gorn models (at least when I downloaded them) came with some alternate engine color files (red & purple as opposed to green). IMHO the green ones are the best looking, but when I was manually adding these ships, I used the different engine colored ships for varients. It triples your available gorn models! If you are interessted and don't have the color change files for the gorn stuff, let me know and I will get them to you.

Gamester
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 09:44:45 am
Thank you. .. but I think I have almost enough gorns. The only probs I can think I may encounter are the weird DND and the tugs.

The HDD and CM looks like a good canditate for Tug modification.. if Thu11s lets me.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 08, 2003, 10:24:15 am
FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 10:37:28 am
Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




He's talking about a tactic where a cancelled scatterpack always goes back to the first dronerack in the list. That's why he wants the C racks there.
Personally I find that tactic abusive because he can be QUICKLY repeated, instead of a transfer of  (check the rules for the value of N) drones per turn transfered from 1 rack to the other, while that rack is supposed to be offline.

However, I understand it since Miraks are the underdogs. I will consider his request.

BTW, he should not expect this to be done for SS2 unless you guys want to wait till I release 3.1
.. and that won't be for a while.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 08, 2003, 12:13:17 pm
What about some other things, like the Hydran new command cruiser phasers? Were you planning to put out anything with some additional models that could squeeze in some of the corrections? If not, we'll have to take that into consideration.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 12:18:58 pm
If I release any form of correction to any of the textfiles, then it's a release thus not compatible to OP+ 3.0,. It's a new release. There is no transparent fix for these requests.

.. besides, a lot of people would be annoyed at me if I was to release now. It hasn't been 2 full weeks, and that was only about 2 weeks between v2.2 and v3.0. I recommend that you work with the current version as-is, with the understanding that there are a few simple errors.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 08, 2003, 12:40:09 pm
That's understandable -- I just wanted to know if you had any plans so I could offer alternatives to Jeff and the crew in case they felt a variation of OP+ might be worthwhile. Now we know we shouldn't wait for a new release.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 02:50:12 pm
What I've been doing today:  I-TUG

My brain hurts, now.. Need rest.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on August 08, 2003, 07:50:40 pm
I came across something odd in the stock OP specs. Taldren's Orion XDD's have a move cost of 1. All the other races' XDD's have a move cost of 0.66. One might say this is because of Engine Doubling; but why then don't the O-XFF or O-XCA have higher move costs than their counterparts?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 09:06:00 pm
That *is* odd. How many warps?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on August 08, 2003, 09:21:12 pm
Orion XDD has 32 warp and 2 impulse. I'd say a move cost of 1 is too high. If you don't double engines, you really can't compete.

Fed XDD has 38 warp, 2 impulse, and 2 apr. Move cost is 0.66.

BPV's are about the same.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 10:02:19 pm
I'd say you're right.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on August 09, 2003, 12:36:27 am
Well, I've changed the O-XDD to have a move cost of 0.67 in the SW 8.8-OP specs. It makes no sense rhat an X-ship would have the same energy curve as an ancient F-CA. Lowering it to 0.67 gives it respectable power, though it's not overwhelming. Some non-X-ships have 34 or more power with a 2/3rds movement cost (H-BAR, L-CWLP, H-TAR, H-APA).

Do you think you might change the OP+ specs in a similar fashion?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 01:02:15 am
Yes. That's clearly a mistake.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 09, 2003, 07:18:15 am
Interested in a Heavy Carrier refit? This is the USS Truman retexture of the stock FCV by Atticbat:



This ship is what brought me BACK to TMP.

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 12:48:50 pm
Yes. Can you send it to me?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 12:50:20 pm
Following is 2 day's worth of 3ds work. I am sorry if the texture's not perfect. I have not mastered any of this. Next on todo list: a I-LTT.


 ISC Fleet Tug, 0 pods
 


 ISC Fleet Tug, 2 cargo pods
 


 ISC Battle Tug
 


Enjoy.
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on August 09, 2003, 03:33:24 pm
FS can you check on the I-BBVZ model (and related ships too). I was playing GSA last night and got a CTD both times I tried to use this ship in a CoopAce misssion. I don't know who had what exactly, but I do know it was a mixture of modeled and non-modeled lists. I have the non-models list. Each time I would get a really long load up, then the starfield, then the UI and just as it seemed it would start up, it CTD. No model ever appeared, not even for a moment. I have used the ship in single player tests and it shows so I think there might be a pointer conflict if you did indeed change the model for this ship in your larger version.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 03:49:55 pm
Can you check and see if you have a "OPPLUS/models/ibb/ibb.mod" at your end? The no_models installer is supposed to copy the IDN model from assets/models/idn and rename the .mod files.

At my end, at first glance, everything was all right. The IBB replacement model worked last time I tested it. I will have to try the 3.0 no_models installer and check it out.

But right now I have to feed the baby.
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on August 09, 2003, 04:00:41 pm
I have ibb.mod and ibb_brk.mod.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 04:20:22 pm
have you tried the BBVZ in a skirmish?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on August 09, 2003, 04:33:09 pm
If you mean single player, yes. Also in the SP campaign. I haven't tried any other multi scripts besides CoopAce. I'd be happy to get on and test it. I had sort of the same problem with a G-HWD model, but I think that was another problem with Frey's list that he got worked out.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 01:44:07 am
If it worked in the skirmish...
.. then there's nothing wrong with the BBVZ.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 04:25:22 pm
ISC LTT completed.

 ISC Light Tactical Transport (LTT)
 


 ISC Light Cargo Transport (LTTC1)
 


 ISC Light Battle Tug (LBT)
 
 
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 05:59:17 pm
Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?  




Back to this:

I did some research, and it seems that there are some restrictions to which modules can be used. However, these following are legal in SFB, and possible under SFC. Skipped are scout (useless), repair (useless) and cargo (bleh).  Note that no plasmas would be added/removed.

1- R-DMH (DemonHawk) (Conjectural, so is "R" and new variants will be "R")
Modules: 2x matching sparrowhawk, 1x skyhawk
- G,A (commando, combat)  (SPECIAL)
- G,G (commando, commando)  (SPECIAL)
- G,C (commando, PFTender)  (SPECIAL)
- E,A (PFT, combat)
(E,C is legal, but can't be done in SFC)
- E,G (PFT, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,A (combat, combat) (**Current config**)
- K,G (combat, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,C (combat, PFT)

2- R-MGH (MegaHawk) (Conjectural. Will be "R")
Modules: 2 sets of matching sparrowhawk modules.
- E,K / K,E  (PFT, Combat)
- E,G / G,E (PFT, Commando)
- E,M / M,E (PFT, PlasmaD)  
- E,K / K,E (PFT, combat)
- G,G (Commando, Commando)
- G,K / K,G (Commando, Combat)
- G,M / M,G (Commando, PlaD)
- M,M (PLaD, PLaD)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)

3- R-OMH (OmniHawk, Light DreadNaught) (Conjectural, Will be "R")
Same as MGH's.



That's a lot of DNs.
-- Luc



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 06:12:37 pm
Quote:

The R-KWR is using the Snipe frigate model, the KR UI, is in the Light Cruiser section and it is classified as a New Heavy Cruiser. That's one mixed up ship. This is in the DL without models.  




Fixed the KWR. I also passed through the shiplist, and made sure that the NCAs are all under the CA shiplists. The KCA UI is necessary for the 5th plasma to fit right.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 08:00:25 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

This is by no means a complaint or any disatisfaction with the fabulous work FS has done for all of us,  just an observation on the 'historical' source material.  





I'm not going to put PFs because a certain ship has fighters, sorry. I will however look for E modules for it, and see what can be done. The fighters that were in the rear hull have been changed to shuttles.  





I just made a Casual PFT variant of it, with 2 PFs. Start year "17" aka 2280.
Designation: R-SUKF
BPV: 207
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 09:40:25 am
Quote:

How about a topical post?

Here's a real correction: H-MKI (Mohawk-I New Command Cruiser) should have 4xPh1, but instead has 4xPh2. If I were a Hydran, I'd be unhappy seeing Ph2 and no Ph1 on an NCC, especially for the BPV. Any hope of a fix before SS2?

Not an error, but odd: the H-CVE is 56 BPV, which jives with the SFB 48 plus 8 for 4 fighters. However, I thought you had said something about using the economic BPV in some cases (for the CVE, it's 68 plus 8 would be 76). In a stock Met_10Patrol (not sure of difficulty factor on matching in .gf), I got put up against a fearsome K-E3DR (2xDroC, 1xADD12, 4xPh3) and then a K-G2CR ... oops ... found another one ... G2CR has Ph3 when it should have an ADD12 post-Y175 and never had Ph3. Anyway, both were cake walks, not unsurprisingly, when I had 4xHornet.III and the CVE's PhGs and lone Ph2. Also waxed a PR with a PlasF in the same mission for good measure. No damage taken in either engagement, no shields lost, no fighters lost. Heck, the Klingon AI fired drones once total in the 2 missions.

Anyway, I wonder if the 68 base BPV would be better for that ship, though certainly Klingon frigates are not going to give anyone a decent fight.

So:

H-MKI should have 4xPh1
H-CVE BPV in question
K-G2CR (and other G2Cs?) should have ADD  




H-MKI, H-IRC -- Fixed.
H-CVE: Agreed. Fixed.
K-G2, G2R -> Fixed. ph3->ADD
K-G2C and variants: check it out, it's wrong. Wrong shields, Aft Hull, number of weapons, # shuttles max..  .. anyways, it's fixed too.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 09:58:32 am
Quote:

Minor niggle:

For the Fed hulls with a DD ship schematic (DD, DW, CL, etc.) - you have them using rear hardpoints 14 and 15 all the time.  There are three rear hardpoints - 14 is center, 15 left, and 16 right.  Since you are only using 14 and 15 in the data, it puts the right phaser (typicall) in the center of the hull and the left side phaser on the left where it should be.  Looks kinda silly.  I'd put the left phaser on the left spot (15) and the right phaser on the right spot (16) and leave 14 empty.  At least, that way, the ship schematic in-game would look symetrical.  




I see it. I fixed anything with a FDD UI and that weird placement.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 10:57:01 am
Quote:

Another ship spec error/question:

Is the Z-CMX given 2xPh1 by design, or is it an oversight, perhaps an automated arc replacement fix that accidentally replaced PhXes with Ph1s?  




Confirmed. I improved my weapons_checker perl script to look for any non-X phasers on X ships. It's the only one with that problem in the races. ... but it looks like I have a bunch of LRs to review.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 11:34:47 am
Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




I need more info .. what's this about "on top"?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 11:38:59 am
Quote:

Orion XDD has 32 warp and 2 impulse. I'd say a move cost of 1 is too high. If you don't double engines, you really can't compete.
Fed XDD has 38 warp, 2 impulse, and 2 apr. Move cost is 0.66.
BPV's are about the same.  




Fixed.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 11:43:31 am
Quote:

Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?  




Back to this:

I did some research, and it seems that there are some restrictions to which modules can be used. However, these following are legal in SFB, and possible under SFC. Skipped are scout (useless), repair (useless) and cargo (bleh).  Note that no plasmas would be added/removed.

1- R-DMH (DemonHawk) (Conjectural, so is "R" and new variants will be "R")
Modules: 2x matching sparrowhawk, 1x skyhawk
- G,A (commando, combat)  (SPECIAL)
- G,G (commando, commando)  (SPECIAL)
- G,C (commando, PFTender)  (SPECIAL)
- E,A (PFT, combat)
(E,C is legal, but can't be done in SFC)
- E,G (PFT, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,A (combat, combat) (**Current config**)
- K,G (combat, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,C (combat, PFT)

2- R-MGH (MegaHawk) (Conjectural. Will be "R")
Modules: 2 sets of matching sparrowhawk modules.
- E,K / K,E  (PFT, Combat)
- E,G / G,E (PFT, Commando)
- E,M / M,E (PFT, PlasmaD)  
- G,G (Commando, Commando)
- G,K / K,G (Commando, Combat)
- G,M / M,G (Commando, PlaD)
- M,M (PLaD, PLaD)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)

3- R-OMH (OmniHawk, Light DreadNaught) (Conjectural, Will be "R")
Same as MGH's.

That's a lot of DNs.
-- Luc
 





Note.
For the OMH and the MGH, 1 of the sets of modules is hardwelded as a K module. That settles down the variants by quite a bit.
- E,K   (PFT, Combat)
- G,K  (Commando, Combat)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 11, 2003, 11:46:02 am
Quote:



Note.
For the OMH and the MGH, 1 of the sets of modules is hardwelded as a K module. That settles down the variants by quite a bit.
- E,K   (PFT, Combat)
- G,K  (Commando, Combat)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)
 




Yeah, but they said that about the heavy hawks as well.  And we see how that has changed.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 11:51:05 am
Quote:

Quote:



Note.
For the OMH and the MGH, 1 of the sets of modules is hardwelded as a K module. That settles down the variants by quite a bit.
- E,K   (PFT, Combat)
- G,K  (Commando, Combat)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)
 




Yeah, but they said that about the heavy hawks as well.  And we see how that has changed.  




I think the heavy hawk variants had the modules hardwelded too.. but into that variant's form.
Anyways. That means a few DNs can appear in the shiplist for Rommies.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 11, 2003, 12:19:02 pm
Quote:

Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




I need more info .. what's this about "on top"?  




I wish I knew. I only copied and pasted what Fluf wrote -- it's not a problem I'm familiar with. Perhaps you could PM or email Fluf for a better picture of the problem?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 11, 2003, 12:24:19 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




I need more info .. what's this about "on top"?  




I wish I knew. I only copied and pasted what Fluf wrote -- it's not a problem I'm familiar with. Perhaps you could PM or email Fluf for a better picture of the problem?  




From just looking at the list through shipedit I can glean this from the above.  If you go to the above 2 ships and look at the weapons page the B racks a listed first before the C racks.  On most other Mirak ships the C racks are listed first.  that must make the difference on how the 'reload' effect takes place when you cancel a scatterpack.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 12:44:18 pm
Ok. Let's see what I can do for these:

    Z-FFR -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-NCD -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-NCD -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BC+ -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-CVS+ -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-DN -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-DN+ -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-DNH -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-CVAR -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-CVAR -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BB -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BBV -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BBV -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BCX -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-CCX -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XFG -- M rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XFG -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XDD -- M rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XDG -- M rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XSC -- M rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XCB -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XCB -- C rack found after other drone rack
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 08:03:14 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?  




Back to this:

I did some research, and it seems that there are some restrictions to which modules can be used. However, these following are legal in SFB, and possible under SFC. Skipped are scout (useless), repair (useless) and cargo (bleh).  Note that no plasmas would be added/removed.

1- R-DMH (DemonHawk) (Conjectural, so is "R" and new variants will be "R")
Modules: 2x matching sparrowhawk, 1x skyhawk
- G,A (commando, combat)  (SPECIAL)
- G,G (commando, commando)  (SPECIAL)
- G,C (commando, PFTender)  (SPECIAL)
- E,A (PFT, combat)
(E,C is legal, but can't be done in SFC)
- E,G (PFT, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,A (combat, combat) (**Current config**)
- K,G (combat, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,C (combat, PFT)

2- R-MGH (MegaHawk) (Conjectural. Will be "R")
Modules: 2 sets of matching sparrowhawk modules.
- E,K / K,E  (PFT, Combat)
- E,G / G,E (PFT, Commando)
- E,M / M,E (PFT, PlasmaD)  
- G,G (Commando, Commando)
- G,K / K,G (Commando, Combat)
- G,M / M,G (Commando, PlaD)
- M,M (PLaD, PLaD)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)

3- R-OMH (OmniHawk, Light DreadNaught) (Conjectural, Will be "R")
Same as MGH's.

That's a lot of DNs.
-- Luc
 





Note.
For the OMH and the MGH, 1 of the sets of modules is hardwelded as a K module. That settles down the variants by quite a bit.
- E,K   (PFT, Combat)
- G,K  (Commando, Combat)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)
 




OOof. Took a while, but completed this. All are "R".
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 08:04:05 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




I need more info .. what's this about "on top"?  




I wish I knew. I only copied and pasted what Fluf wrote -- it's not a problem I'm familiar with. Perhaps you could PM or email Fluf for a better picture of the problem?  




From just looking at the list through shipedit I can glean this from the above.  If you go to the above 2 ships and look at the weapons page the B racks a listed first before the C racks.  On most other Mirak ships the C racks are listed first.  that must make the difference on how the 'reload' effect takes place when you cancel a scatterpack.  




Done.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 08:05:02 pm
Note to self:

I've completed the correction requests up to this post.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 12, 2003, 03:20:40 pm
Quote:


H-MKI, H-IRC -- Fixed.
H-CVE: Agreed. Fixed.
K-G2, G2R -> Fixed. ph3->ADD
K-G2C and variants: check it out, it's wrong. Wrong shields, Aft Hull, number of weapons, # shuttles max..  .. anyways, it's fixed too.  




Was just checking through Jeff's shiplist and wanted to verify G2s. Did you see the following?

K-G2 should not have Ph3, and should have 1xADD6, shield 4 should be 9 boxes
K-G2R should be 50 BPV, should not have Ph3, and should have 1xADD12, shield 4 should be 9 boxes

In other words, the BPV, ADD type, and rear shield value all check out now?

This also affects the WG2 and WG2+, which should not have Ph3s.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 12, 2003, 05:02:05 pm
I may have forgotten the WG2s. I will work on those later. Thanks.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 12, 2003, 07:26:17 pm
Please note that the GCM's break model causes a CTD when a GCM variant explodes. I have redone the break model at my end with success. I guess it's only by playing that these things will be discovered.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Sten on August 13, 2003, 12:33:49 pm
Firesoul

I know you don't want to mess with the Taldren Ships.

But can you look at the Lyran PFE one time and remove 1 distruptor from the PFE so it only has 3.

I have been watching the PFE after it fires its first volley and the PFE has a problem even charging the 4th disruptor let alone ever getting the ESG charged.

After the first volley power is scarce.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 13, 2003, 12:44:13 pm
Quote:

Firesoul

I know you don't want to mess with the Taldren Ships.

But can you look at the Lyran PFE one time and remove 1 distruptor from the PFE so it only has 3.

I have been watching the PFE after it fires its first volley and the PFE has a problem even charging the 4th disruptor let alone ever getting the ESG charged.

After the first volley power is scarce.  




Have you tested this?
I've noticed the PFEs dropping to speed 8.3 or so after a volley (past experience). A removal of 1 Dizzy would probably speed it up by .. 12.. making it a speed 20 reloading PF. (not bad)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Sten on August 13, 2003, 02:04:04 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Firesoul

I know you don't want to mess with the Taldren Ships.

But can you look at the Lyran PFE one time and remove 1 distruptor from the PFE so it only has 3.

I have been watching the PFE after it fires its first volley and the PFE has a problem even charging the 4th disruptor let alone ever getting the ESG charged.

After the first volley power is scarce.  




Have you tested this?
I've noticed the PFEs dropping to speed 8.3 or so after a volley (past experience). A removal of 1 Dizzy would probably speed it up by .. 12.. making it a speed 20 reloading PF. (not bad)




Well yea. Actually I would like to see the PFE with only 2 disruptors and add in 1 phaser-3 LS and another RS. But with all the flames lately I looked at a more modest proposal.

The 4th Disruptor has a hard time getting charged after the first volley. The ESG forget about it.

So truth be told Dizzy's PFL from SG3 is what inspired me.

 Now to avoid any additonal hot dicussions about added internals and what not.  I came to two options to improve the power curve without adding aditional power to the PFE.

Option 1) Remove 1 disruptor frees up 2 points of power. The PFs AI seems to function better with the extra power. The AI will put power into ECM, and will attempt to charge the ESG.

Option 2) Remove two disruptors add 1 phaser-3 to the LS and add 1 phaser-3 RS. Again this version can defend itself but leads to the I can't kill em easy crowd getting bent out of shape.  This is the version that I feel might cause people to get bent out of shape.

You hit the nail on the head with the PFE. Once its fired its volley the power breakdown looks as follows: 8 points into 4 disruptors, 3 points into phasers, 1.5 point into housekeeping leaves you with 2.5 points for movement.

 Max Speed speed 12-13 while charging this is why the 4th disruptor has a devil of a time charging much less the ESG.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 13, 2003, 04:32:38 pm
I don't mind removing 1 dizzy on the PFEs. I recognize the AI's stupidity.
Know that the BPV of the PFE will be lowered. (how much is 1 dizzy worth?)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rod O'neal on August 13, 2003, 09:39:30 pm
I've always thought that the L-PFE is WAY overgunned. I agree with the 2xdisr, 2xPh3 version. Stock it outguns many frigates and is s-l-o-w. Personally, I like the L-PFL specs, which is much better defensively, and is more inline with the firepower of a vessel this size.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 13, 2003, 10:31:17 pm
Quote:

I've always thought that the L-PFE is WAY overgunned. I agree with the 2xdisr, 2xPh3 version. Stock it outguns many frigates and is s-l-o-w. Personally, I like the L-PFL specs, which is much better defensively, and is more inline with the firepower of a vessel this size.    




Remember that the L-PFE was a Taldren invention. Removing it would probably not help this project (I tend to preserve Taldren-made ships). Adding ph3s to it changes it too much to my taste. I much prefer the simple removal of a single disruptor for power balance.

That .. thing.. doesn't need more ph3s for defense.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Sten on August 14, 2003, 07:49:53 am
FireSoul,

At this time just drop the entire PFE issue. Its not a good time it appears.

Anyhow as I drove into to work. That old beta tester mind kicked in and I thought of a possible work around.

Just need to test my ideal out when I get home tonight.

Since the PFs in OP do not launch semi-hot as they do in EAW. Its time to develope different tactics again.

If you would sir forget about what I posted.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 14, 2003, 08:12:07 am
FYI,

.. check out some of the ships I've made models for:
 http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB11&Number=146540&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1


I don't have permission to the modify part of his 'modify and/or distribute' agreement of his material. the author agreed on distribution as part of my mod some time ago via email, but the modification part only came recently when I discovered my 3ds legs.

..so.. maybe these won't make the next version.. or maybe these will. Dunno yet.
-- Luc

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 14, 2003, 12:20:20 pm
Can you check the name of the R-SNE in the specs? I think it reads Snipe-B Battle Frigate, but should be (?) Snipe-E Escort (I'm guessing, since I don't have my books with me). If this does need to be changed, does the strings.txt etc. need to be updated?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 14, 2003, 01:04:35 pm
Quote:

Can you check the name of the R-SNE in the specs? I think it reads Snipe-B Battle Frigate, but should be (?) Snipe-E Escort (I'm guessing, since I don't have my books with me). If this does need to be changed, does the strings.txt etc. need to be updated?  




Problem's in the shiplist. That means strings.txt will also have to be updated. No biggie.
Will be in next release, as you probably expected.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 14, 2003, 01:07:55 pm
Yep. Just calling them out as I find them.

New one: should H-IRC have 4xPh1 instead of 4xPh2 (a la MKI reported earlier)? Don't have my book here to check, but that's my guess.

Another quibble: should H-D7H follow a refit track (shields upgraded I think)? I seem to remember it should.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 14, 2003, 01:09:57 pm
Quote:

Yep. Just calling them out as I find them.

New one: should H-IRC have 4xPh1 instead of 4xPh2 (a la MKI reported earlier)? Don't have my book here to check, but that's my guess.

Another quibble: should H-D7H follow a refit track (shields upgraded I think)? I seem to remember it should.  




I did the H-IRC at my end a few days ago, and.. as it happens.. a D7H/D7H+ split *10* minutes ago.
Keep at it Doug.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Fahrenheit on August 15, 2003, 10:48:31 am
Quote:

Yep. Just calling them out as I find them.

New one: should H-IRC have 4xPh1 instead of 4xPh2 (a la MKI reported earlier)? Don't have my book here to check, but that's my guess.

Another quibble: should H-D7H follow a refit track (shields upgraded I think)? I seem to remember it should.  




It didn't in SFB, since the Anarchist was a one-off ship.  However, I think it'd be prudent to have an upgrade track so that people can play "what-if" (and perhaps SFB did this, not sure).


"Don't be afraid to take a big step. You can't cross a chasm in two small jumps." -- David Lloyd George
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 15, 2003, 10:56:31 am
Actually, even a single ship can have refits. Like I said, there was a shield upgrade. There was also a boom phaser upgrade. The original D7H had Ph2s on the boom and rear/side-rear shields in the teens; the D7H with a refit has Ph1s on the boom and the shields go up to 20 on the aft, I believe. The Taldren stock D7H had Ph1s and shields were too high at 22. The pre-refit version wasn't there at all. Now there will be 2 versions if FS has made the changes I think he did. Anyway, it's a minor point. After that, we essentially get one extra ship nobody will use.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 15, 2003, 01:54:39 pm
Quote:

Actually, even a single ship can have refits. Like I said, there was a shield upgrade. There was also a boom phaser upgrade. The original D7H had Ph2s on the boom and rear/side-rear shields in the teens; the D7H with a refit has Ph1s on the boom and the shields go up to 20 on the aft, I believe. The Taldren stock D7H had Ph1s and shields were too high at 22. The pre-refit version wasn't there at all. Now there will be 2 versions if FS has made the changes I think he did. Anyway, it's a minor point. After that, we essentially get one extra ship nobody will use.  





22 shields are correct.  the D7(and D7H) had 30 - 22 - 15 - 13 shields and the refits made the rear 3 equal to the 2 and 6 shields in other words 30 - 22 - 22 - 22
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Max_iCOP on August 16, 2003, 02:14:46 am
Not a correction, but a fair place to put this.

THANK YOU, Firesoul !!!

This is an outstanding piece of work, which has got me hooked on OP yet again.
I really cannot describe how god I think it is.

Can we play it on-line at all?

Again, many thanks
Max_iCOP.

p.s. on re-reading I spotted a Freudian Slip of "god" instead of "good".  Maybe I can describe it afterall .
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 16, 2003, 07:28:26 am
Quote:

Not a correction, but a fair place to put this.

THANK YOU, Firesoul !!!

This is an outstanding piece of work, which has got me hooked on OP yet again.
I really cannot describe how god I think it is.

Can we play it on-line at all?

Again, many thanks
Max_iCOP.

p.s. on re-reading I spotted a Freudian Slip of "god" instead of "good".  Maybe I can describe it afterall .  




You're welcomed.
When you say "can we play it online a tall?", do you mean us playing.. or do you mean "can this be used online?"
.. This can be used online just fine.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: RazalYllib on August 16, 2003, 08:15:36 am
OP ARENA is currenty using the shiplist and it is a lot of fun.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 16, 2003, 11:05:17 am
QUESTIONS:

1- I've noticed that there are only SBXes.. no BTX or BSX. Are these wanted? This questions depends on the next one, for the style wanted.

2- .. The current bases aren't the same as the SFB bases. There are some notable differences. Should I leave them alone, or redo them?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Max_iCOP on August 16, 2003, 02:39:04 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Not a correction, but a fair place to put this.

THANK YOU, Firesoul !!!

This is an outstanding piece of work, which has got me hooked on OP yet again.
I really cannot describe how god I think it is.

Can we play it on-line at all?

Again, many thanks
Max_iCOP.

p.s. on re-reading I spotted a Freudian Slip of "god" instead of "good".  Maybe I can describe it afterall .  




You're welcomed.
When you say "can we play it online a tall?", do you mean us playing.. or do you mean "can this be used online?"
.. This can be used online just fine.  




I meant how do I get a game against another human.  Is there a Dynaverse set up?  Will Game Spy allow match up's?  Or do I have to TCP/IP a fellow player?
Thanks again
Max_iCOP
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 16, 2003, 05:37:54 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Not a correction, but a fair place to put this.

THANK YOU, Firesoul !!!

This is an outstanding piece of work, which has got me hooked on OP yet again.
I really cannot describe how god I think it is.

Can we play it on-line at all?

Again, many thanks
Max_iCOP.

p.s. on re-reading I spotted a Freudian Slip of "god" instead of "good".  Maybe I can describe it afterall .  




You're welcomed.
When you say "can we play it online a tall?", do you mean us playing.. or do you mean "can this be used online?"
.. This can be used online just fine.  




I meant how do I get a game against another human.  Is there a Dynaverse set up?  Will Game Spy allow match up's?  Or do I have to TCP/IP a fellow player?
Thanks again
Max_iCOP  




This shiplist is used on GameSpy for a long time now. There isn't a difference (as far as SFC is concerned) between direct TCP and GameSpy. As for a Dynaverse server, yes there is one set up. See above.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 26, 2003, 12:00:55 pm
Quote:

QUESTIONS:

1- I've noticed that there are only SBXes.. no BTX or BSX. Are these wanted? This questions depends on the next one, for the style wanted.

2- .. The current bases aren't the same as the SFB bases. There are some notable differences. Should I leave them alone, or redo them?  





"YES!" on #1.

"No IDEA" on #2.  Taldren's weaker than SFB?  Haven't seen SFB specs in ages.


I'm not sure any of the bases need to be harder to take down.




BTW...I noticed (since I use the version of OP+ 3.0 that doesn't include the models, since I like my own just fine, thank you!   ) that you replicate the K-F5s from the KDD folder and the HF5s from the KFF folder.  This doesn't seem quite right to me.  Has this already been discussed elsewhere in this thread?






 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 26, 2003, 12:28:10 pm
Quote:

Quote:

QUESTIONS:

1- I've noticed that there are only SBXes.. no BTX or BSX. Are these wanted? This questions depends on the next one, for the style wanted.

2- .. The current bases aren't the same as the SFB bases. There are some notable differences. Should I leave them alone, or redo them?  





"YES!" on #1.

"No IDEA" on #2.  Taldren's weaker than SFB?  Haven't seen SFB specs in ages.


I'm not sure any of the bases need to be harder to take down.




BTW...I noticed (since I use the version of OP+ 3.0 that doesn't include the models, since I like my own just fine, thank you!   ) that you replicate the K-F5s from the KDD folder and the HF5s from the KFF folder.  This doesn't seem quite right to me.  Has this already been discussed elsewhere in this thread?






 





I haven't seen this thread in a while.

.. for the #2 question: SFC bases are a bit stronger than the SFB ones. They would have to be understood, and the technique used reverse-engineered to be able to reproduce the BSX and BTX in the same style.


As for the model, I don't quite recall.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Cmdr. Krotz on August 26, 2003, 12:54:00 pm
FS-

Would you look into changing the K-DWC's 2 FX Phaser-1s to the KFX arc please, so as to be more in line with other Klingon ships? All the other Klingon NCA hulls are doing it  

Thanks,
        Krotz  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 26, 2003, 01:08:07 pm
Quote:

FS-

Would you look into changing the K-DWC's 2 FX Phaser-1s to the KFX arc please, so as to be more in line with other Klingon ships? All the other Klingon NCA hulls are doing it  

Thanks,
Krotz  




The DWC is a pre-R10 ship Taldren invention. Why shouldn't it just be removed?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 26, 2003, 01:32:06 pm
Why not, indeed...  


So..regarding the KFF being replicated to suffice for the HF5s...


You don't recall and don't care or you'll look into it?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 26, 2003, 01:51:03 pm
Quote:

Why not, indeed...  


So..regarding the KFF being replicated to suffice for the HF5s...
You don't recall and don't care or you'll look into it?  




Ah. That. I have found models for the HF5 since 3.0. I don't need to do anything, since it kinda has been fixed already.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Cmdr. Krotz on August 26, 2003, 04:39:27 pm
Quote:

 The DWC is a pre-R10 ship Taldren invention. Why shouldn't it just be removed?  




I'm sure no one would mind its passing, but if it is kept around, it would be nice to maintain it "up to code", so to speak.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 26, 2003, 05:28:09 pm
Quote:

Quote:

 The DWC is a pre-R10 ship Taldren invention. Why shouldn't it just be removed?  




I'm sure no one would mind its passing, but if it is kept around, it would be nice to maintain it "up to code", so to speak.  




It's going to be removed. The NCAL and the DWC were the only 2 leftovers of that class still in the shiplist. All the others have been replaced since they had the same designation as the one that was already in the shiplist. This way, it's fair and good to everyone.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 01:29:23 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Why not, indeed...  


So..regarding the KFF being replicated to suffice for the HF5s...
You don't recall and don't care or you'll look into it?  




Ah. That. I have found models for the HF5 since 3.0. I don't need to do anything, since it kinda has been fixed already.  




Perhaps you have missed my point.


i'm talking about those of us who do not download the "model pack" version and are having the KFF directory replicated for the HF5s when clearly the model being used for the other F5s (KDD) is more appropriate.

I hope this clarifies things sufficiently.  Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 27, 2003, 01:38:39 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Why not, indeed...  


So..regarding the KFF being replicated to suffice for the HF5s...
You don't recall and don't care or you'll look into it?  




Ah. That. I have found models for the HF5 since 3.0. I don't need to do anything, since it kinda has been fixed already.  




Perhaps you have missed my point.


i'm talking about those of us who do not download the "model pack" version and are having the KFF directory replicated for the HF5s when clearly the model being used for the other F5s (KDD) is more appropriate.

I hope this clarifies things sufficiently.  Thanks in advance for your consideration.  




Ah. Ok.
Feel free to change it as you want at your end, I'll chang eit in the current build of next OP+ at my end.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 03:02:28 pm
Thanks.  I've already done so.  It's good to hear the replication issue will be addressed.



In regards to the HF5 models you have found, can you give a little more detail as to what they are...and perhaps where they might be seen?  I'm currently using P81's K'Vort model for the KDD model (pertaining to the F5s, FWs, F6 and the HF5s).  I wouldn't mind making a distinction between F5s/FWs/F6 and the HF5s.  I just haven't come across a suitable model.  I find very few of the Klingon models out there to be to my liking...heheh.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 27, 2003, 03:22:28 pm
NOTE: I already made my choices, and I don't think I will be changing my mind. I'm posting my choices here to make Dog happy.


In next release:

KDD (stock): F5, F5W, etc.
 

Romulanized F5, RK5R: For R-K5R, and variants:
 

Pirate F5 (Korgath):
 

KF6: K-F6
 

RKFR: Romulanized K-F5: R-KFR
 

KHF5: Klingon HF5s and variants
   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 04:12:19 pm
Thanks!


It's always good to see what I'm "missing" and to see if there's anything out there that's better (to me) than what I'm using.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 27, 2003, 04:22:06 pm
Quote:

Thanks!


It's always good to see what I'm "missing" and to see if there's anything out there that's better (to me) than what I'm using.


 




Remember.. That's not in the current version, but in the next one.
So, what do you think?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 04:35:15 pm
Well, as you can tell by my choices of P81's B'Rel for the KFF and his K'Vort for the KDD, you and I differ on the fundamental direction the model selections should go.


I like the different skins.  I like the "Romulan-ized" versions of the Klingon models.  I like the F6 model, to a degree.  I would consider using that one.  The model fo the HF5 looks decent...I'd probably like to get a better view of it using "modview."  It's something I'd consider using for that Klingon HDW model.


For my part, if I had my druthers, I'd like to see P81's B'Rel and K'Vort useds and "Romulan-ized" or "Korgath-ized" versions of  those done.  His B'Rel and K'Vort are just top-notch in terms of detail, and overall look.  I really haven't used anything else for about as long as either of those models have been available.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 27, 2003, 04:53:36 pm
Quote:

Well, as you can tell my my choices of P81's B'Rel for the KFF and his K'Vort for the KDD, you and I differ on the fundamental direction the model selections should go.


I like the different skins.  I like the "Romulan-ized" versions of the Klingon models.  I like the F6 model, to a degree.  I would consider using that one.  The model fo the HF5 looks decent...I'd probably like to get a better view of it using "modview."  It's something I'd consider using for that Klingon HDW model.


For my part, if I had my druthers, I'd like to see P81's B'Rel and K'Vort useds and "Romulan-ized" or "Korgath-ized" versions of  those done.  His B'Rel and K'Vort are just top-notch in terms of detail, and overall look.  I really haven't used anything else for about as long as either of those models have been available.
 




I'm using my SFB background to help me choose models. Maybe that's where it's different?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 05:53:05 pm
Possibly.  

Since the SFB background (which I also have) isn't necessarily always applicable to SFC, it's hard (at least for me) to say whether or not it should be the final arbiter of what "looks good" in a game that is based upon SFB, but is not itself SFB.

As always...models are a matter of taste.  They are there to add visual appeal to the game.  Within reason, I'm personally quite comfortable leaving behind "SFB" considerations in favor of what looks best to me.  This is why I am very happy to use Atrahasis' C5 model for all my KDN needs and skip the rest of the, IMHO, ugly KDN models out there.    In terms of Klingon models...if it's not done by Atrahasis, P81 or Gow, I'm generally not interested based upon what I've seen in my 2 1/2+ years as a consumer of the SFC2 product line.  I was there, like many, ast the start of SFC1, but never bothered with changing models for that game.


Your mileage may vary, of course.


As i've mentioned before, the only reason I don't use your model pack is that I don't like many of the models you've chosen.  That's why I'm very happy that you have a "no model pack" version that replicates what I already have in place and allows me to pick and choose other models I might wish to use given the expanded model pointers.  My main interest, then, is to seek out corrections and additions based upon what I see is needed.  Hence my original query about the KFF model being replicated by your installer to serve as the model fo the HF5s when you're using the KDD model for other F5s.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 28, 2003, 12:23:47 pm
Gosh I love this stuff.

 It is a lost cause to find a happy place for choices in models for FireSoul's refit project. I'd like to see a UN conference like meeting negotiating the standardization for the models that will be used. Just picture that for entertainment value. "Are you nuts? Atra's C5 is too good not to use. And I don't care if it does fly in the face of SFB lore. So, nya."

Speaking as one who has gone through the shplst three times trying to find the perfect model for every spec I can tell you it can't be done... yet. FireSoul's op+ refit has given a lot of momentum for producing a number of models that didn't exist before. Which makes me very happy.   The Mirak MTT he kitbashed is just wonderful. As are the tugs Emeraldedge put together. But, there are a number of considerations competing for those choices and compromizes must be made. One of the ones I made was to use the Maguellanes for the Fed HDW class. It isn't accurate but I like the model so much I had to find a place for it. I also chose Anduril's Phoenix for the GSC because it's that good and it fits well. And so on and so forth...

I have really enjoyed trying to help FireSoul with a model here and there. More often than not he didn't go for what I thought was a good choice for a particular model. He has different ideas and criteria which I respect. In the mean time I'm just going to enjoy his product and see just how much fun we can make this game. Thank's FS for all the work that has gone into this. I like it just fine and it is an easy thing to make a change here and a change there.

Happy hunting  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 28, 2003, 12:28:34 pm
I think that summed a lot of the problems: I can't make everyone happy.

However, I sure can make things a lot better, and give people the ability to make themselves happy.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 28, 2003, 01:24:44 pm
Quote:

I think that summed a lot of the problems: I can't make everyone happy.

However, I sure can make things a lot better, and give people the ability to make themselves happy.  






And you have done that without question.  I'm not at all trying to say otherwise.  Like I said..I appreciate the effort that has gone into OP+ since the very start of the project.  I've said that all along.  I really appreciate offering both mod packages (one with models and one without).  It makes life very easy for the guy (like me) who wants the extra model pointers and an easy way to keep what he already has in terms of models in place.  That's just awesome, honestly.


My main concern was that while using the mod in the capacity that I am, I just happened to notice something that didn't make sense in the way folders were replicated to accomodate new ship pointers.  Thanks for addressing that issue, FS.


My opinion was asked on the model screenshots that FS posted and I willingly and freely gave it.  I wasn't demanding (something I'd never do) or expecting (I'm a realist) any change.  I merely provided my opinion on the models themselves.  There are aspects of them that I like, but for me personally, I doubt I'll use them.  Exceptions might be the F6 and HF5 model.



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Pestalence on August 30, 2003, 03:53:37 am
Minor error Firesoul...

Found is shipnames.txt the hull registry for the Constellation to be incorrect...

the correct hull registry number as seen in "Doomsday Machine" is NCC-1017

like I said, minor.. the registry you have is from the Starfleet Technical Manual based off TOS. Hull registries in it are incorrect. SFB may have used it as a source material for reference.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Bernard Guignard on August 30, 2003, 07:28:04 am
Hello Firesoul
        Thank you for the op+mod its great fun playing it with the custom missions. Have you considered adding the ADB's
Old Carrier Fcvo the flat top to your shiplist. An ssd was presented in the Stellar Shadows Journal.  Keep up the great work
I'm enjoying seeing the tugs that you've been creating its adding great variety to the game.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Drakenred on August 30, 2003, 12:42:34 pm
So was the B-29

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/playtest/B29.pdf

Warp mounted aliance heavy weapons

(for example a proposed NCL for your consideration)


http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/r2_9z1.gif

or

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/r2_9z6.gif

the ever popular (R6.J4) GORN GIGANOTOSAURUS DREADNOUGHT (DNR)

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R6_j4_dnr.gif

And one that I would love to see in the Fed list,

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R2_j5_cac.gif

16 Phaser Gs, Now THAT is what I call a Mauler!

Oh and lets not forget the D-77

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R3_j5_d77.gif

   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 30, 2003, 01:31:46 pm
Quote:

So was the B-29

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/playtest/B29.pdf

Warp mounted aliance heavy weapons

(for example a proposed NCL for your consideration)

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/r2_9z6.gif

the ever popular (R6.J4) GORN GIGANOTOSAURUS DREADNOUGHT (DNR)

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R6_j4_dnr.gif

And one that I would love to see in the Fed list,

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R2_j5_cac.gif

16 Phaser Gs, Now THAT is what I call a Mauler!

Oh and lets not forget the D-77

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R3_j5_d77.gif

   




Well since Firesoul is using a FASA K-17 as an SFB ship, I would like to nominate D'deridex's FASA Klingon Saber as the D-77. It appears to closely resemble the SSD IMHO.

Again, this is Just my opinion.

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Drakenred on August 30, 2003, 02:29:14 pm
ok now lets stop and think about this for a second,

you want him to add all of the"Oficial" C/J (Conjectural/Joke)ships?

that means that your going to see

the Fed Pol with the firepower of 10 Gatings

The Hydran "Duke John Wayne " Super heavy crusier armed with Gatling Hellbores(No I am not kidding, 4 shot single turn reload Helboars and the power to arm them) Gatling fusion beams, and Gatling P-1s

Fed Cruisers that retain the Photon fire arcs but add Addtional Drone racks = their photon (IE a NCL will get 4 more Drone racks, the CC gets 4 more Drone racks, the BCJ gets 6 more Drone racks and so forth) and double drone tracking acrost the fleet

Self propeled Battlesations

Miriak Triple space Magnum Drones(yes, you can do it with the code!)

the "Miriak" CaDG?( a Cruiser(1.0 move cost) with DN Warp,  Drone Phaser and Disrupter armament and 12 PFs

And all to get the D77

WOOOT! GO MON GO!



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Drakenred on August 30, 2003, 02:47:33 pm
Oh! I almost forgot the Phaser M Mounts for Fed ships! (thoes were basicaly P-4 with a range limmit of 75 and also had more power and batteries

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 30, 2003, 03:06:54 pm
I'm not entering anything that hasn't been published in a SFB module. (Exception: a few xships)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Bernard Guignard on August 30, 2003, 05:48:59 pm
Hi Firesoul
   Thats too bad but I respect your decision. The F-CVO  as its now called was an offical design before ADB decided change the CVA design  to a dreadnought variant. So they could convert dreadnoughts into CVA's in Federation and Empire.  The miniature has been the most popular SFB miniature and has been a consistant top seller for ADB not to mention the kitbashing potential of said miniature to make a nice  SCS and other carrier versions. I even have a copy of the first edition ssd with the old  photon freezer box that would supply the fighters with thier torps around near my desk. It was a neat CVA and playing with the miniature was just as much fun. I lost most of my first edition SFB material lent it to a person and never got it back. Good thing I nixed the idea of lending him my miniature collection or that would have went also. Well have a great labour day weekend and thanks again for all the fun matieral that you've put together.      
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Drakenred on August 30, 2003, 09:47:51 pm
Actualy, the folowing ships were techicaly built in the SFB Universe

Romulan
(R4.933) BATTLE EAGLE MEDIUM CARRIER (BEV): ( Quite posibly the worst carrier in the game)

(R4.934) BATTLEHAWK-B DESTROYER LEADER (BHB): Esentualy a conversion of the battlehawks that aparently were converted because they were hevily wrecked

(R4.J5) ROMULAN DOUBLE-HAWK (DBH):Only one produced, a ship that was basiclay only good as a convoy escort if it didnot try to manuver.  Granted, Seeing it come out from under cloak  the first time when you were chasing it probably was a unplesant surprise to most Fed captains http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R4_j5_dbh.gif KING

FALCON HEAVY MAULER (HFA):Basicaly a king Eagle Refit of the Falcon Mauler, A ship subject to the shock rules whenever you fire both the Mauler and the Plasma torps   you can recharge either the mauler or the plasma -F-torps.

(R9.936) SCREECH OWL HEAVY SCOUT (HSC):  it was a partial "King eagle" refit of the Scout eagle. aparently only one built

(R.937) SNIPE-C BATTLE FRIGATE LEADER (SNC): Only one built,

Freighter Ducktails (Added shuttel and/or transporter) and skids ((you can add on "skid" per "cargo pod" on a freighter, the skids come in two flavors, one added 1*P2+ +1 APR + 1 Battery + 1 Transpoter + 1 Lab + 1 tractor the other Adds 1 P2 one APR 1 Heavy ((IE 2 space)shuttle bay and a HTT and three transporter,(the faster to offload cargo suposedly)   are oficial, as was the "overloaded" Small and medium freighters (basicaly more cargo for padding, but slower due to the added weght and were suposedly only used for insystem runs) and "in balast" freighter, (Freightrs with out Cargo pods, faster, but fewer interals due to the lack of cargo pods) (note you cant jetison the cargo pod in a "senario" as the manuvers to undock-drop pods and redocking and intitialising interlocks and stabelising hull integrity feilds and reseting the warp coils aparently took too mutch time.  Aparently Freighers were never around when Cloaking Romulans had to fight cloaking Orion Pirates armed with Plasma torpedoes.

Klingon

(R3.J6) KLINGON DV7 HEAVY CARRIER (DV7): was probagly not built and even if built never saw service
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R3_j6_dv7.gif  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Bernard Guignard on August 31, 2003, 05:19:32 am
Quote:

I'm not entering anything that hasn't been published in a SFB module. (Exception: a few xships)  




Hi Firesoul
Does this mean that we might see Early Years ships  

 
The Old Carrier Rocks

Take Care and be well  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 31, 2003, 12:16:54 pm
I've been thinking about it..  .. but some of the old tech can't be done, and YLAs would need to be decided on. It's not in the works, but maybe one day I can try to enter some of these ships into early era.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 31, 2003, 03:17:12 pm
L-NMC, whom I did not enter myself (don't blame me. ) is incorrect. It has 8 ph1s and 2 ph3s. It's supposed to have 4 ph1s and 2 ph3s. I guess the weapons were copied from the L-NCA.

It will be corrected in the next release.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 04:54:42 am
With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 05, 2003, 11:40:34 am
As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.


There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  





 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 11:45:23 am
Quote:

As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 




I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 05, 2003, 12:39:04 pm
Quote:

Quote:

As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 




I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.  




I'd have to agree with the 'Smoothing out' of the ISC carriers.  Seems a little silly to adjust one groups number of fighters per carrier based on fighter strength of a particular era, if that were the case then the Z versions should be reduced as Cav 3's are overmuch.  

As for races with weak fighters getting more of them on their carriers....I don't see any more fighters on Klingon carriers than the other races.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 05, 2003, 01:15:04 pm
Quote:

Quote:

As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 




I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.  





i'm not saying you're wrong in terms of your project and Mace brings up some good points.  Your list is meant to cater to a multi-platform experience.  It's well-known that it generally can't be taken "as-is" for use in D2 play.

I'm merely trying to point out that I don't think that this change you're doing is something that will end up being used in a future D2 version of your list.  I could be wrong, of course.  I just don't see the change as being all that necessary in D2 play and I'm not sure I've ever seen this discussed as being a hot issue that needed addressing.


I'm not sure I get your menaing about "bitterness."  If you're somehow intimating that I'm bitter, I'd request you check yourself...because you're way off the mark.  If you're bitter, well, I'd say I wish you weren't but that's your issue.  


I reiterate...it's your list..."smooth out" all you like...  


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 01:51:47 pm
yeah.. well.

*I*'m bitter.. and trying not to be.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on September 05, 2003, 02:21:30 pm
C'mon Firesoul, release this already. I applaud your HEROIC efforts to distill 20+ years of game rules into a standardized shiplist. You knew going into this folks would have a difference of opinion BUT we needed a GOOD, standardized place to start. I never played SFB so I'm no rules lawyer in this arena to be sure but I do know that your shiplist is a lot of FUN to play. So lets get this thing out the door!  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 02:39:01 pm
Quote:

C'mon Firesoul, release this already. I applaud your HEROIC efforts to distill 20+ years of game rules into a standardized shiplist. You knew going into this folks would have a difference of opinion BUT we needed a GOOD, standardized place to start. I never played SFB so I'm no rules lawyer in this arena to be sure but I do know that your shiplist is a lot of FUN to play. So lets get this thing out the door!    




Only after SS2.
.. and the MIRV rack testing..  *hint hint*
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 05, 2003, 04:18:35 pm
I look forward to this testing...it should be fun!
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 05, 2003, 05:02:06 pm
Quote:

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 





Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: The_Infiltrator on September 05, 2003, 05:28:00 pm
Because, frankly, taldren doesn't even bother to consistenly follow their own rules. Not only that, the shiplist they have is full of errors.

Quick check of ISC carriers, first number fighters it carries in SFB, second number number of fighters in SFC:

CV, CVZ: 12, 12
CVA,CVAZ : 24, 16
CVE, CVEZ: 8, 4
CVL, CVLP, CVLS, CVLZ: 9, 8
CVS, CVSZ: 12, 8


As can be seen here, the fighter numbers using taldren's own rule of thumb for the CV (and variants) and the CVL (and variants) is too high.

As for ISC fighters having problems, it's not Firesoul's fault that taldren inexplicably decided that ISC fighters should not carry the plasma torpedoes that they carry in SFB. Send complaints on this to the game designers, as he has no control over that.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 05, 2003, 06:02:29 pm
Quote:

Because, frankly, taldren doesn't even bother to consistenly follow their own rules. Not only that, the shiplist they have is full of errors.

Quick check of ISC carriers, first number fighters it carries in SFB, second number number of fighters in SFC:

CV, CVZ: 12, 12
CVA,CVAZ : 24, 16
CVE, CVEZ: 8, 4
CVL, CVLP, CVLS, CVLZ: 9, 8
CVS, CVSZ: 12, 8


As can be seen here, the fighter numbers using taldren's own rule of thumb for the CV (and variants) and the CVL (and variants) is too high.

As for ISC fighters having problems, it's not Firesoul's fault that taldren inexplicably decided that ISC fighters should not carry the plasma torpedoes that they carry in SFB. Send complaints on this to the game designers, as he has no control over that.

 





Errr...so you don't think that the statement you make in your very last paragraph has anything to do with the obviously purposeful inconsistency?

It is my assumption that the carriers are they way they are for a reason....a good reason.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 11:31:48 pm
Guys.. Guys.. I know what I'm doing.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Kortez on September 07, 2003, 11:25:09 am
Quote:

Quote:

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 





Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?  




I would like to know this too, because I am concerned about these changes.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: The_Infiltrator on September 07, 2003, 05:53:09 pm
Another thing FS, how about possibly adding SFB bases? WIth all the module configurations (or as many as possible). Leave the current ones and let people decide what they want.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 07, 2003, 05:59:37 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 





Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?  




I would like to know this too, because I am concerned about these changes.
 





Ok. My added ships already have the proper proportion reduction. The Taldren ships, however, do not.
If I was to do it in THEIR way, the CVD(Z) would have 24 fighters or so.  The I-CVF and CSF would have 12. Nuts.

Hence why I want to change the Taldren ships.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on September 07, 2003, 06:22:12 pm
Your logic is reasonable. People just don't want to give up advantages for their favorite ships/race. They don't look at the bigger picture.

Why should an I-CVL get 100% SFB fighter supply(9) while a comparable CVL from another race gets just 2/3rds?

I've heard the argument that the ISC need bigger squadrons because their fighters don't have Plas-F/D. However, look at the stats that Taldren gave them! I'd trade Plas-D for multiple Ph-2's and Ph-G's anyday.

FS, you can't please everyone. Keep up the good work!  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 07, 2003, 11:47:37 pm
Quote:

Your logic is reasonable. People just don't want to give up advantages for their favorite ships/race. They don't look at the bigger picture.

Why should an I-CVL get 100% SFB fighter supply(9) while a comparable CVL from another race gets just 2/3rds?

I've heard the argument that the ISC need bigger squadrons because their fighters don't have Plas-F/D. However, look at the stats that Taldren gave them! I'd trade Plas-D for multiple Ph-2's and Ph-G's anyday.

FS, you can't please everyone. Keep up the good work!  





I know. Thanks Tar.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 12:04:45 am
I don't give a rats ass about the CLV's. The CV's are what I'm concerened about. They need their 12 fighters and the CVD/Z is not a replacement for them.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 12:18:32 am
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 





Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?  




I would like to know this too, because I am concerned about these changes.
 





Ok. My added ships already have the proper proportion reduction. The Taldren ships, however, do not.
If I was to do it in THEIR way, the CVD(Z) would have 24 fighters or so.  The I-CVF and CSF would have 12. Nuts.

Hence why I want to change the Taldren ships.  





What a load of bullp00p!.
That CVD has no heavy weapons,HOW in the hell do you call is a replacement for the CV class??

Please send me some of what yer smokin!

Fine if you want to reduce the fighter levels do it across the board for all races.
Or find a way to put the heavey weps back on our fighters.

FS if you do this it will drive away all the ISC carrier pilots,I see how you say you are being fair(rollseyes).
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 12:34:29 am
Guys,
I can't make everyone happy... but at least I am making myself happy.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 12:39:20 am
Quote:


What a load of bullp00p!.
That CVD has no heavy weapons,HOW in the hell do you call is a replacement for the CV class??

Please send me some of what yer smokin!

Fine if you want to reduce the fighter levels do it across the board for all races.
Or find a way to put the heavey weps back on our fighters.

FS if you do this it will drive away all the ISC carrier pilots,I see how you say you are being fair(rollseyes).  





The CVD is supposed to be a ship of the same size as the CV, but with a LOT more fighters. (24 SFB)

1- .. *ALL* SFB CVs have 16 fighters! Why should the ISC keep its 16-fighter CV in SFC while the others have been reduced to 12? The ISC fighters are not inferior.
2- The CVD is not a replacement, it's an enlargement... and I'm not giving it 24 in SFC.


-> I am tired of telling ISC pilots this. <-

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 01:49:56 am
You are missing the whole point.
If you strip fighters off them carriers,it will lessen thier firepower.
And hence why bother to even fly them.

You wont see me playing on any server using such a shiplist.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 01:52:40 am
CVD Has no heavy weapons.

Oh sure Its larger then the non DN carriers,but big deal.fighters die and you are dead.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 01:55:21 am
And I still want some of what you are smoking.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 09:39:37 am
Taldren made their dictates.  They are not fair to all.

Taldren could not accurately portray Offensive Pl-D, which probably would have been the only Plasma-race heavy fighter weapon.  As they are basically 50% strength Pl-Fs...

As such, Taldren gave us lovely phaser-only fighters.  In a perfect world, these fighters would need to close to range 0 in order to deliver an accurate strike.  The best ISC fighter, the Caveat III, carries 2xPh-G & 1-Ph2 FH, Ph-G RX.  These fighters, when they fire @ range 4 (outside effective AMD range) average (assuming either LF or RF shot where all the phasers come to bear) 4.8 damage per fighter, with a max of 15 (assuming all 1s and 2s on the Gats, and a 1 for the Ph-2).
Admittedly, these fighters are evil in close, maximum damage of 54 per fighter at range 0.  How many Fed / Klink / Mirak fighters, on average, get into range 0, strike, and survive the retreat?

Knowing fighter survivability rates, Taldren intentionally gave the ISC more fighters.  It was said so many moons ago.

You seek as close as possible of a SFB translation to SFC as possible in your shiplist.  You also claim to keep the Taldren way of doing things.  I repeat.  Taldren decreed the ISC is due a higher fighter ratio per carrier than everyone else as ISC fighters have no heavy weapons.  They intentionally ignored their 2/3rd fighter rule as we have no heavy weapons.

Your work is excellent.  I enjoy your project, and thank you heartily for the time invested.  I just question this one decision of yours.  In my opinion, by dropping the ISC fighter ratios to the same as everyone elses, you violate your decision of "as close to Taldren's original as possible".  

My opinions:
Gamespy pays for these fighters at their declared BPV.  D2 pays to carry them, though they are not figured into the force calculations.  SP, people can do what they want anyway.  By keeping the Original Taldren ISC fighter ratios, which does mean more fighters on the newer carriers, players can restrict themselves to smaller fighter counts themselves, if they wish to.  By forcing this reduction down the chain, it prevents the freedom of choice allocated all players since this game came out.
I also admit that fighter adjustments due to other concerns (such as fighter ECM) may be in order.  However, as they apply to everyone's fighters, these adjustments should be considered and applied globally.  Even if it's a +X BPV per Phaser carried and our fighters shoot up 3-6 BPV each cause they carry so many phasers.

I know it's player tendency to look out for their race.  I look at it because people who play one race usually are familiar with both their strengths and weaknesses.  As for the ISC, we were understandably upset when we first had to pay for, then lost, (in EAW) one of our SFC advantages in the I-torps.  We complained when the change came down, adjusted, and lived with it.  I feel many pilots were ready to live with the change to proper SFB limits in OP if it wasn't for the bugs that came with that change.  So we live with the higher BPV and price.  ISC fighter ratios are balanced by their replacement costs and survivability.  Tort III fighters carry 2 Ph-2s each, and 16 of them are about as effective as carrying a 4-pack of K-G2s that can be killed by AMD.  And it costs us about as much for 16 Torts as a K-G2.  The Caveat IIIs are just as bad for us.  We're paying for fighters that work effectively like Pl-R drones.  If a fighter closes to range 0 and unloads everything, it does about as much damage as a Pl-R.  And after AMD, phasers, T-bombs etc, they live just about as long as a drone.  One pass.  And I think it costs us more for a full pack of Caveats than it does a Mirak to load up with all fast drones.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 09:46:20 am
Good post Julin..

.. however this campaign hasn't convinced me that ISC fighters with so many gatlings are inferior. Suggestions?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 08, 2003, 09:48:05 am
A mistake is still a mistake whatever you want to call it.  And if it removes some of the carriers from the battlefield then all the better.

I always thought the ISC were a good all around race and not a carrier race only.

Why should the other carriers be reduced along with the errant ISC carriers.  How about we raise the other carriers to match the ISC loadouts??  Would that be better???

As for the lack of heavy weapons on ISC fighters, lets take look at the other races  so called heavy weapons on fighters.  Disrupters and photons and fusions range of about 4 with very little damage hellbore and missiles are the only things close to being effective but they both have reduced damage 4 for the big fighter drone 2 for the little one and I think the fighter hellbore does half normal damage.  

Do the ISC fighters use low powered weapons??  Nope, standard phasers and lots of them which also means they don't use ammo.

This has become tiresome.......
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 10:25:21 am
It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 10:29:20 am
Mace,

Our fighters tend to go to range 3 to range0.

Hence we lose a bunch of them in ship explosions.

I have lost all 16 before on the CVAZ when a BCH blew.

Beside this is starting to look like a"I cant beat them so lets nerf them thread"

The next thing you will say is that the Miraks have to many drones
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 10:29:36 am
Quote:

It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.  





Ok. Say I was to add 4 APRs. Tell me which *continuous* 4 boxes to remove? (of same type) That shuttlebay is mighty huge for a variant of a CC. Have it make sense.. something that takes hullspace..

-- Luc

edit:continuous.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 10:39:21 am
Quote:

Quote:

It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.  





Ok. Say I was to add 4 APRs. Tell me which *continuous* 4 boxes to remove? (of same type) That shuttlebay is mighty huge for a variant of a CC. Have it make sense.. something that takes hullspace..

-- Luc

edit:continuous.





Look just answer me this - What did the other races BCH's lose to place 8 fighters (2/4 PF's) on them? It surely wasn't power. I would happily lose 4 shuttles and consign the BCV to 2 shuts max instead of losing power.


OK, correct that - The BCV already lost 2 max shuttles. Well I don't know about the other players, but I would be willing to loose two more max shuttles and two fighters (that makes two max shuttles and six fighters). That four points of power is really that imporatnt on that ship. Four more hull is also an option, but that wouldn't be my choice.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rod O'neal on September 08, 2003, 11:08:39 am
This might or might not be a viable alternative/compromise, but I'll throw it out there. would increasing the damage for ISC fighters work? This would make the squadrons more survivable but not add more firepower. Seems like most of the complaints revolve around losing the ftrs too fast.

There is a precedent for this in SFB, if you need one. ISC ships run about 20% larger per size class than the rest of the races. maybe in SFC it needs to be carried over to the ftrs as well?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 11:11:31 am
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.  





Ok. Say I was to add 4 APRs. Tell me which *continuous* 4 boxes to remove? (of same type) That shuttlebay is mighty huge for a variant of a CC. Have it make sense.. something that takes hullspace..

-- Luc

edit:continuous.





Look just answer me this - What did the other races BCH's lose to place 8 fighters (4 PF's) on them? It surely wasn't power. I would happily lose 4 shuttles and consign the BCV to 2 shuts max instead of losing power.  




PF Tenders require 4-8 repair boxes for the PFs as well as the necessary mechlinks. The Lyran's BCH was designed with repairs as the default config and would come with PFs as standard.


No can do. 2 of the old shuttlebays themselves have been converted to fighterbays. The APRs have been removed to move the batteries from the centerhull to the right side of the ship. The 6 additional fighterbays were additions to the ship. I guess the designer prefered to keep the batteries (which are very important in SFB) over the APR.

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and  add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?

--
I agree that this is a special case, where SFC conversion needed some balance to compete with other BCHs. Would this solve the whole carrier issue ISCs seem to be having in order to compete with BCHs?

To Miraks: The MIRV loadouts would be your balance enhancement.





 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 08, 2003, 11:20:25 am
Quote:

Mace,

Our fighters tend to go to range 3 to range0.

Hence we lose a bunch of them in ship explosions.

I have lost all 16 before on the CVAZ when a BCH blew.

Beside this is starting to look like a"I cant beat them so lets nerf them thread"

The next thing you will say is that the Miraks have to many drones  




Man, I see what you mean.  thats too bad about your cav III's dying at range 0 from an exploding ship, we don't have that problem with Lancer III's.  Of course thats because the ships don't explode from range 0 Lancer III's.    

But you know what, it just doesn't matter.  He's gonna change it cause it's his baby.  That's not to say it'll stay that way on the server.  I'm sure you'll have your standard CV's as thats what you ISC regulars like to fly most.  And it's good to see a bunch of guys flying ISC on the server, heck it's good to see a bunch of people on the server period.

Oh, and I never said I couldn't beat them.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 11:21:07 am
Quote:

This might or might not be a viable alternative/compromise, but I'll throw it out there. would increasing the damage for ISC fighters work? This would make the squadrons more survivable but not add more firepower. Seems like most of the complaints revolve around losing the ftrs too fast.

There is a precedent for this in SFB, if you need one. ISC ships run about 20% larger per size class than the rest of the races. maybe in SFC it needs to be carried over to the ftrs as well?    




Not bad. Not bad at all.

Usually:
Patrol:  11, 12, 12
Heavy: 12, 14, 15
Interceptor: 10, 12 ,12

I'm thinking:
12, 13, 13
13, 15, 16
11, 13, 13


In other words: 10-13: +1   14,15: +2
In a group of 4, that would make a heck of a difference. (1 pt can make a heck of a difference, because if the fighter only needs 1 point to kill, a player may waste a full ph1 just for 1 fighter kill)

Note: I would also increase the BPV of all fighters by 1, except the basic fighter.
Exception: I would leave the basic Restitution.I as is, as to not unbalance BPV on ships. (2 BPV per fighter. Fighter is identical to all races')
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 11:23:58 am
Quote:

Another thing FS, how about possibly adding SFB bases? WIth all the module configurations (or as many as possible). Leave the current ones and let people decide what they want.  




Not.. very practical. The only time I know I will encounter a Base is in D2, and it's different at very mission. Refits are good, but variance tends to make things screwy. Also, the Taldren bases have been made differently: a bit stronger.

.. probably to compensate for missing minefields.


I'd like to add X1 versions of bases, but I would need to understand the Taldren style first. (Gats on bases.. yuck)
Think: BSX.. and BTX... scary?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 11:27:07 am
Quote:

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?





That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 11:33:00 am
I checked SFCShadow's hint guide.

The only ISC fighters with Gatlings are the III line.  The Writ, Tort and Restitiution III each have one Forward-area Gatling (Usually FH but one's FX).  The Caveat assault fighter, instead of having drones and heavy weapons, gets 3 Gatlings, 2 FH and one RX.

For comparison, the Hydran Wasp III Fighter has 2 Gats FH & 2 Fusions FX.  I'm tempted to say the RX gat may make up for the 2 Fusions...  Fed Raven III, Gat FH, Photon FX (2 rounds), Fighter Dro-1 rack, 4 shots.  The additional 2 Gats make up for the photon & drones...

Personally, I think the entire Assault-III line is rediculously overpowered, whether Wasp, Caveat or Basenji.  Too bad the double-space restrictions never worked right...

You asked for a recommendation to "fix" the 3 Gat Caveats?  Here's a couple, possibly usable to fix the entire "assault" fighter issue, whether feasable or not.
  • Enforce the double-space fighter rule across the board.
  • Weaken all the supposedly double space assault fighters to more reasonable single space loadouts, as they are effectively single space fighters.
  • Make dedicated heavy carriers, with proper heavy fighter loadouts, restrict the assault fighters to those carriers, and remove them from general purchase.
  • Adjust BPVs for fighters.  I admit, the way Fighter ECM works makes phasers more powerful.  Any phaser BPV adjustments should be global to all races.
  • Allow the ISC Phaser-1 pod(s) in lieu of heavy weapons, and adjust the Gatling / remaining phaser loadout to appropriate levels.  Once the ISC gets a "heavy weapon" pod (as fighter phasers are rechargable and SFB Ph-1 pods aren't), loadout reduction is appropriate.  I'd say 1 Ph-1 in place of 2 drones / heavy weapons on comprable fighters is appropriate due to rechargability.  Most ISC fighers would have at most 1 Ph-1, Caveats get 2.  My only concern, how would these Ph-1's work in light of the Fighter ECM issue.  Also, with a "heavy weapon", reduction to the 2/3rd standard is appropriate.
  • Allow the ISC (who Taldren has hijacking every one else's technology) to shoplift fighter heavy weapons.  Disruptors, Photons, Hellbores, etc.  Again, loadout adjustment and fighter count reduction is appropriate.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on September 08, 2003, 11:45:37 am
Umm.... Am I correct in assuming that some of the ISC fighters should have some heavy weapons in SFB?

If so.... can the DroD be substituted in for it?

I have tested it, and the DroD does work with fighters in OP.  

(are DroD even in EaW? I should probably go look)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 11:54:59 am
Yep.  SFB ISC FIghters carry heavy weapons.

The "superiority" fighters carry Pl-D, and the "tactical" fighters carry carrier-rechargable Pl-F.

In SFC, there's no "dogfight" plasma to give the appropriate 50% damage reduction to the superiority fighters (as Pl-D is effectively a 50% strength Pl-F in a drone case), and it has been believed that the Dro-D still is plagued by speed issues (ie, Medium Speed Dro-Ds ignore shields) in both EAW and OP.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 11:59:59 am
Quote:

Umm.... Am I correct in assuming that some of the ISC fighters should have some heavy weapons in SFB?

If so.... can the DroD be substituted in for it?

I have tested it, and the DroD does work with fighters in OP.  

(are DroD even in EaW? I should probably go look)  




The DroD does work , but there are major issues related to speed.
However! If you Set it right, it can be a unique weapon for just the ISC.

From memory, may be wrong.
The Slow early DroD does 10 points of damage. I think it acts normally.
The Med DroD does 10 points of damage, but ignores shields! (bad)
The Fast DroD does 20 points of damage and is envelopping! (wtf!)


What we could do is have 1 such weapon on the fighters, no reloads. The fighter would appear in LATE ONLY. I would think that about 2281 (18) is good, in response to PFs. Its *UNIQUE* weapon would be the EPT DroD.

I played with this in the past. It's nice. I Called them the Satane.IIIs or something. (heee)
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 02:24:11 pm
That may be a workable idea.

the things about those EPT Dro-Ds would be that they do approx. 2 damage to each shield.  If they are somewhat effective (on the order of other fighter weapons), then I'd agree to a re-make of ISC fighters where we get these at appropriate levels (ie, lighter fighters get 1, heavier fighters get 2), with a couple of reloads (2) like fighter drones have.  

As far as unique weapons go, this definitely sounds like a workable idea, I may have to try this sometime to see how effective this  really is...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 08, 2003, 03:46:37 pm
Quote:

Good post Julin..

.. however this campaign hasn't convinced me that ISC fighters with so many gatlings are inferior. Suggestions?  





You're right...you know why?  Because we're using Taldren's model of the fighter loadout conversion for the ISC CVLs and CVs--- not yours.  


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 08, 2003, 04:01:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?





That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.  





I liked it much better when we were talking about giving more power to the I-BCV and just leaving it with it's 8 fighters (like everyone elses BCV).


I'd agree that doing without batteries and adding 4xAPR is something that won't trouble an ISC captain.  As others have said, I think many of us are flying carriers is because the I-BCV is such a complete waste of time.  On LB4, even adding two power (for total of 42) helped, but still wasn't great.  Take 11% of the warp power on most ships and you end up with a decided POS, Caveat-IIIs notwithstanding.





 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 04:04:00 pm
Quote:

(for total of 44)




Check yer math Rover!  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 08, 2003, 04:09:38 pm
Funny...I was thinking "44 power" in general as ideal and ended up typing it instead of "42"....corrected.  



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 04:30:39 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?





That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.  





I liked it much better when we were talking about giving more power to the I-BCV and just leaving it with it's 8 fighters (like everyone elses BCV).


I'd agree that doing without batteries and adding 4xAPR is something that won't trouble an ISC captain.  As others have said, I think many of us are flying carriers is because the I-BCV is such a complete waste of time.  On LB4, even adding two power (for total of 42) helped, but still wasn't great.  Take 11% of the warp power on most ships and you end up with a decided POS, Caveat-IIIs notwithstanding.

 




The ship must have batteries.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 05:13:04 pm
I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 05:18:35 pm
Quote:

I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  




Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 06:04:17 pm
Quote:

Quote:

I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  




Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.  




Thank you.  That will at least help out a few ships.  I wasn't sure if that was new as my current CCY only has the one twinned hardpoint...
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 06:15:42 pm
Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 06:40:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  




Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.  




Thank you.  That will at least help out a few ships.  I wasn't sure if that was new as my current CCY only has the one twinned hardpoint...
 




I did it a few nights ago at the first request I got. So.. obviously not in SS2 .. because it's not released material yet.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 09, 2003, 11:34:13 am
Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 09, 2003, 11:35:31 am
Quote:

Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.  





I'm in agreement.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 09, 2003, 12:17:06 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.  





I'm in agreement.  




Glad to hear it, because that carrier will still have its weaknesses:
.. having only 2 shuttlebays on a carrier will really hurt you..
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 09, 2003, 01:25:48 pm
Quote:

Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.





The ISC needs at least one dog ship to make up for our quality everywhere else...

I look at it this way.  With the dual hardpoints, you can fly it just like a CAZ with fighters and extra padding on the PPD, you can fly it as a slower CCZ with fighters, or do what all good carriers are supposed to do, castle and let the fighters kill the enemy...

We always could beg for a fully powered BCV and treat it like the CAAZ, with a 1.25 move cost due to all the extra stuff...  

On my other concern:

Until positive word comes back on fighter testing for the Dro-D equipped ISC fighters, I believe that we are stuck with the current Phaser fighters.  Are the plans still calling for a fighter cutback, or do we keep the ISC-special fighter ratios due to the phaser fighters?  As I shown in my previous post, on our best fighter, we get gatlings in lieu of a fighter heavy weapon or a drone rack's worth of drone shots.  While heavy weapons or drones are nearly just as effective outside AMD range (4) as they are at range 0, gatlings are not.  Gatlings also do not deplete AMD racks to allow unmolested fighter strikes.  We need the extra one to two squadrons to deplete enough AMD letting the remaining fighter groups in.  Fighters we must replace at cost / waste repairs on while drones reload for free.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Karnak on September 09, 2003, 01:53:28 pm
The ISC needs a I-BCV-class ship that can compete with the L-BCHT without too many sacrifices made.  As Corbomite pointed out, most other races get BCV ship conversion without any sacrifices on power so there's no reason that the ISC should be the first in trading power boxes for fighter-bays for such conversions; especially, when all other ISC weapons suck up power.

The I-CCV ship looks like a fair compromise.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 09, 2003, 03:52:26 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.





The ISC needs at least one dog ship to make up for our quality everywhere else...

I look at it this way.  With the dual hardpoints, you can fly it just like a CAZ with fighters and extra padding on the PPD, you can fly it as a slower CCZ with fighters, or do what all good carriers are supposed to do, castle and let the fighters kill the enemy...

We always could beg for a fully powered BCV and treat it like the CAAZ, with a 1.25 move cost due to all the extra stuff...  

On my other concern:

Until positive word comes back on fighter testing for the Dro-D equipped ISC fighters, I believe that we are stuck with the current Phaser fighters.  Are the plans still calling for a fighter cutback, or do we keep the ISC-special fighter ratios due to the phaser fighters?  As I shown in my previous post, on our best fighter, we get gatlings in lieu of a fighter heavy weapon or a drone rack's worth of drone shots.  While heavy weapons or drones are nearly just as effective outside AMD range (4) as they are at range 0, gatlings are not.  Gatlings also do not deplete AMD racks to allow unmolested fighter strikes.  We need the extra one to two squadrons to deplete enough AMD letting the remaining fighter groups in.  Fighters we must replace at cost / waste repairs on while drones reload for free.  





Increasing the fighter HPs seems like a good suggestion. It increases survivability by a lot. That should compensate for the lack of heavy weapons: add armor.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 09, 2003, 04:18:18 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.  





I'm in agreement.  




Glad to hear it, because that carrier will still have its weaknesses:
.. having only 2 shuttlebays on a carrier will really hurt you..  




Naturally, I didn't say it was the best solution, nor did I say it wouldn't have its weaknesses.  I did say that it seemed to be the best solution posted so far.  Is there a better one?  Possibly.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 09, 2003, 04:23:26 pm
True enough, Julin.  You can fly the I-BCV like a lot of things...except a BCV.    This was given as a reason why so many ISC captains opt for the CVs when they are available and thus why so many weren't happy with the proposed fighter loadout change.


I'm still not sure that will ever get adopted for D2 play, but an improved BCV for the ISC and perhaps making their fighters more durable might make a little more likely.  As good as those CAveat-III's are, I still buck at the prospect of losing them when ships explode.  It's just another reason I stay in a line ship even though flying something else would give me faster missions and (apparently) frighten people unduly.  



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 02:03:21 am
ok..


here's what I am going to do about ISC issues.
1- file the I-CCV idea for later. Try the mountpoint splits first on the ISC ships. I don't want to add my own creation in the shiplist at this time. I want to fight the modified BCV for a while first, and see how better it is.
2- implement the fighter loadout corrections on unequal ISC carriers
3- Increase the # hull on all fighters except Reclamation.Is (stock) and Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 10, 2003, 09:35:01 am
Quote:

Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 



This is ridiculous.  If you shoot a thousand P-3s from fighters at a ship with a shift of 2(4 ecm) then they should do 0 damage.  No chance to hit at all 0 0 0 0   A shield (with ecm protection) should never drop from P-3's at range 15 no matter how many are fired.   How is this happening??????

Also, if you don't add points to the cav 3's then it's moot as that's all they use.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 10, 2003, 09:55:52 am
Fighters have 2 ECCM. You'd need 6 ECM to get a 2 shift.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 10, 2003, 10:21:33 am
Quote:

Fighters have 2 ECCM. You'd need 6 ECM to get a 2 shift.  




Yes, but I'd really only need 3 to get a shift of 1 which is all you need to get no damage out of a phaser 3 at range 15.

I just said 4 as this is the norm for most players which would end up being 2 due to the fighters 2 eccm that leave us with 2 ecm and a shift of 1.  You show me the dice it takes to roll a 1 on when you have to add 1 to the roll.

I used to play SFB with this guy that always seemed to do too much damage.  We caught him one time doing more damage in a Fed CA that was possible at that range.  Talk about your magic photons.  Maybe he was using those magic dice too.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mog on September 10, 2003, 12:09:24 pm
Agree with jimmi on the ph3 damage being impossible outside range 8 through a +1 shift. Looks like the fighters ignore ECM bug is back (or never went away).

As for an I-BCV with 44 power. The CCZ itself will beat any BCV, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Put 8 Caveat IIIs on it and it will take a BB to stop it in 1v1. The CCZ is half of why I don't play ISC anymore - too easy to win with it. Cav IIIs are the other half - again they make it too easy.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 12:12:39 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 



This is ridiculous.  If you shoot a thousand P-3s from fighters at a ship with a shift of 2(4 ecm) then they should do 0 damage.  No chance to hit at all 0 0 0 0   A shield (with ecm protection) should never drop from P-3's at range 15 no matter how many are fired.   How is this happening??????

Also, if you don't add points to the cav 3's then it's moot as that's all they use.  









Fine. It's the ph2s that slow you down at range 15. I'll add the hull to the Cav.IIIs.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 12:16:03 pm
This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 10, 2003, 12:32:42 pm
When it comes down to it you can do what you want. All we are trying to get across is that you just can't plop ships from SFB into SFC and expect it all to work out. Case in point, that BCHT you like to fly is so OTT it gives cheese a bad name...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Karnak on September 10, 2003, 12:48:01 pm
Quote:

ok..


here's what I am going to do about ISC issues.
1- file the I-CCV idea for later. Try the mountpoint splits first on the ISC ships. I don't want to add my own creation in the shiplist at this time. I want to fight the modified BCV for a while first, and see how better it is.
2- implement the fighter loadout corrections on unequal ISC carriers
3- Increase the # hull on all fighters except Reclamation.Is (stock) and Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 




I would do the I-CCV idea now cuz the server admins will probably do it on their own for your shiplist when they use it in a campaign if you don't; especially, after they read the last 10 or so posts in this thread regarding ISC ship changes and the ISC veteran pilots' reactions to them.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on September 10, 2003, 12:55:31 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  




Quote:

When it comes down to it you can do what you want. All we are trying to get across is that you just can't plop ships from SFB into SFC and expect it all to work out. Case in point, that BCHT you like to fly is so OTT it gives cheese a bad name...  




Actually, that is why the ADMINS must adjust the shiplist for the servers.  FS stated from the start, his goal was to bring as many SFB ships into the shiplist as possible.  He also stated that the admins should limit the ships as they see fit.

All in all, I don't think the BCHT is way OTT.  But when you have to face one after another, after another, after another.... You're gonna lose eventually.

IMO, if we are gonna do an OOB, then all hull sizes larger or outside of normal heavy line crusiers have to be on an OOB also.

FS, you are doing a great job with the OP+ shiplist.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 10, 2003, 12:58:17 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  




This is easily understandable.

Can't win for losing.

I for one have nothing really bad to say about the shiplist, but then again I am an SFB'er....
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on September 10, 2003, 12:58:37 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  




At least you get feedback. I hear people say that Shipwrights 8.13 sucks, is broken, doesn't work, etc., but nobody tells me why. It is frustrating. I'm just about finished trying to enhance the game for a largely apathetic or empire-centric player pool.

http://www.webspace4me.net/~tarminyatur/sw.html
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 01:02:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  




At least you get feedback. I hear people say that Shipwrights 8.13 sucks, is broken, doesn't work, etc., but nobody tells me why. It is frustrating. I'm just about finished trying to enhance the game for a largely apathetic or empire-centric player pool.

http://www.webspace4me.net/~tarminyatur/sw.html  





What's your impartial opinion on these ISC changes that MAY happen, Tar?
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 10, 2003, 05:29:24 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  





Heaven forbid someone should comment on something you say and *gasp* not agree with you.


Silly me...I thought that part of the reason for this thread (and these fora as a whole) was to discuss issues relating this this project and anything else relating to the SFC family of games.


If you have such a problem with people commenting, I can't for the life of me see why you would post your intentions publicly and constantly (and in my opionion wholly appropriately because it's a wonderful thing) crow about your project.


I can't speak for others, but my involvement in this thread has been to try to help and/or ask perfectly valid questions.  Every time I do, you get a little arrogant/snippy.  If you don't want questions or opinions from anyone, please state it as being such next time and we'll all (or at least I will) keep our mouths shut.


Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 06:09:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  





Heaven forbid someone should comment on something you say and *gasp* not agree with you.


Silly me...I thought that part of the reason for this thread (and these fora as a whole) was to discuss issues relating this this project and anything else relating to the SFC family of games.


If you have such a problem with people commenting, I can't for the life of me see why you would post your intentions publicly and constantly (and in my opionion wholly appropriately because it's a wonderful thing) crow about your project.


I can't speak for others, but my involvement in this thread has been to try to help and/or ask perfectly valid questions.  Every time I do, you get a little arrogant/snippy.  If you don't want questions or opinions from anyone, please state it as being such next time and we'll all (or at least I will) keep our mouths shut.


 





This thread is for corrections from SFB materials.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: The_Infiltrator on September 10, 2003, 06:53:27 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Another thing FS, how about possibly adding SFB bases? WIth all the module configurations (or as many as possible). Leave the current ones and let people decide what they want.  




Not.. very practical. The only time I know I will encounter a Base is in D2, and it's different at very mission. Refits are good, but variance tends to make things screwy. Also, the Taldren bases have been made differently: a bit stronger.

.. probably to compensate for missing minefields.


I'd like to add X1 versions of bases, but I would need to understand the Taldren style first. (Gats on bases.. yuck)
Think: BSX.. and BTX... scary?  





FS, reconsider please. There ARE other venues than GZ and D2 play. Bases would be a welcome addition.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: The_Infiltrator on September 10, 2003, 08:04:14 pm
Quote:

I checked SFCShadow's hint guide.

The only ISC fighters with Gatlings are the III line.  The Writ, Tort and Restitiution III each have one Forward-area Gatling (Usually FH but one's FX).  The Caveat assault fighter, instead of having drones and heavy weapons, gets 3 Gatlings, 2 FH and one RX.

For comparison, the Hydran Wasp III Fighter has 2 Gats FH & 2 Fusions FX.  I'm tempted to say the RX gat may make up for the 2 Fusions...  Fed Raven III, Gat FH, Photon FX (2 rounds), Fighter Dro-1 rack, 4 shots.  The additional 2 Gats make up for the photon & drones...

Personally, I think the entire Assault-III line is rediculously overpowered, whether Wasp, Caveat or Basenji.  Too bad the double-space restrictions never worked right...

You asked for a recommendation to "fix" the 3 Gat Caveats?  Here's a couple, possibly usable to fix the entire "assault" fighter issue, whether feasable or not.
  • Enforce the double-space fighter rule across the board.
  • Weaken all the supposedly double space assault fighters to more reasonable single space loadouts, as they are effectively single space fighters.
  • Make dedicated heavy carriers, with proper heavy fighter loadouts, restrict the assault fighters to those carriers, and remove them from general purchase.
  • Adjust BPVs for fighters.  I admit, the way Fighter ECM works makes phasers more powerful.  Any phaser BPV adjustments should be global to all races.
  • Allow the ISC Phaser-1 pod(s) in lieu of heavy weapons, and adjust the Gatling / remaining phaser loadout to appropriate levels.  Once the ISC gets a "heavy weapon" pod (as fighter phasers are rechargable and SFB Ph-1 pods aren't), loadout reduction is appropriate.  I'd say 1 Ph-1 in place of 2 drones / heavy weapons on comprable fighters is appropriate due to rechargability.  Most ISC fighers would have at most 1 Ph-1, Caveats get 2.  My only concern, how would these Ph-1's work in light of the Fighter ECM issue.  Also, with a "heavy weapon", reduction to the 2/3rd standard is appropriate.
  • Allow the ISC (who Taldren has hijacking every one else's technology) to shoplift fighter heavy weapons.  Disruptors, Photons, Hellbores, etc.  Again, loadout adjustment and fighter count reduction is appropriate.

 




Your post has several problems with it.

First, none of the L3 fighters are double space. If it was you'd have a dual gatling, hellbore and fusion armed hydran fighter. Second, the wasp you list above is actually very close to the Stinger-X. However, the stinger X is available sooner than the wasp III, can go speed 31 while performing erratic manuvers and with 2 ECM pods. Third there is no such animal as a phaser-1 pod. There is a single shot phaser-3 pod.  Fourth SFB style ECM for fighters is much more powerful and useful than SFC fighter ECM.

The real problems with fighters are the way that heavy weapons in general for them are implimented. Unfortunately, there's no fix for this, just like there's no way to get a true SCS in the game.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: AdmiralFrey_XC on September 11, 2003, 01:59:20 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.





Didn't someone mention something to me just the other day about over reacting?

Quote:

Heaven forbid someone should comment on something you say and *gasp* not agree with you.


Silly me...I thought that part of the reason for this thread (and these fora as a whole) was to discuss issues relating this this project and anything else relating to the SFC family of games.


If you have such a problem with people commenting, I can't for the life of me see why you would post your intentions publicly and constantly (and in my opionion wholly appropriately because it's a wonderful thing) crow about your project.


I can't speak for others, but my involvement in this thread has been to try to help and/or ask perfectly valid questions.  Every time I do, you get a little arrogant/snippy.  If you don't want questions or opinions from anyone, please state it as being such next time and we'll all (or at least I will) keep our mouths shut.







Doggy does have a point. Something I was reminded of recently as well : if you ask for feedback, don't get mad if it's not what you wanted to hear.

Quote:



This thread is for corrections from SFB materials.  





Luc, making this offhand statement is what gives everyone the impression you could care less about the feedback unless it's feedback you agree with. How could you make this statement in regards to the current discussion focal, which is that - GASP - once again it's proven that SFB to SFC direct ports just....don't.....work.....100%, which is why there's a big balloo about the ISC Fighters, as well as a couple other things... lol


Luc, you've done some fantastic work, there's no doubting that, but may I suggest you take a step back, and just make sure you're where you want to be right now regarding SFC?

EDIT : bold looked stupid, fixed it.

Regards,
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 11, 2003, 02:41:38 pm
I may be overreacting for now.. but remember that I've been on this since April '02 and maybe it's time to think about a wrappup. However, there's still material to cover and things to tweak.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: AdmiralFrey_XC on September 11, 2003, 04:28:45 pm
Now that's the Firesoul I know !!

Let me know if you need any help testing out the "new material".

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 11, 2003, 05:32:18 pm
Quote:

Now that's the Firesoul I know !!

Let me know if you need any help testing out the "new material".

 




Thanks, Frey.  I appreciated your previous (to this one) post.  


In addtion, I'm more that interested in helping test these changes/tweaks, as I have been all along.  That interest, as well as my appreciation for the OP+ project and all of FireSoul's hard work has never wavered.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on September 11, 2003, 07:01:37 pm
Quote:

I may be overreacting for now.. but remember that I've been on this since April '02 and maybe it's time to think about a wrappup. However, there's still material to cover and things to tweak.  




Well, I've never offerd a word of critcism and have only bugged you when I thought I may know of something that may interest you. I speak as a fan and supporter of your project. All of this will wind down someday... and all we will have are the archived projets people like yourself have worked so hard on. I wouldn't be surprised if I find myself flying a campaign with your spec list a decade from now. I kid you not.

And, disturbingly, I havn't been able to make SFC work on my new big, bad WinXP pro machine yet. This is what keeps me on my old rig.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on September 11, 2003, 07:48:22 pm
Quote:


What's your impartial opinion on these ISC changes that MAY happen, Tar?
-- Luc  




I can't be totally impartial. I'd resist adding even more armor to any fighter or giving the ISC DroD. ISC fighters are not inferior. The 2/3 ratio should be applied consistently.

I believe that SFC has undergone an unfortunate arms race especially in the fighter department. The impetus behind it is poor fighter AI (which is now better than it has ever been--no borderphobia, minimum speed set to 20, stopping bug eliminated), the multiplayer AMD echo bug (which has been fixed, no longer echoes damage by number of clients), and the damage allocation process for squadrons (which has been adjusted to allow a lot of overkill). We now have these changes that improve fighter effectiveness but have not reconsidered the initial fighter specs to see if they are still appropriate. I realize that fighters have limited regeneration, but this is often inconsequential if your fighters have more firepower than a Battleship and cost similar to an  FF. Even the AI's inability to fire Ph-3's wisely doesn't matter when the fighters can fly at speed 27+.  Naturally, the only opponents you see are those that field a lot of missiles to exploit the AI's lack of self-preservation or you'll see escorts(G-rack/Plas-D) or a few super-ships. Understandably, it would be suicide to take a ship that can't outrun fighters or has poor PD. So you get boring combat consisting of BCH's, CWL's, DWL's, Escorts, and Carriers. There are hundreds of other ships to fly but the vast majority of them gather dust because of this arms race. Campaigns can mitigate this problem somewhat. My focus is on GSA play.

My main point is: What do we gain from of CV's, Escorts, and PFT's? Do they make the game any more fun for either side? Do they add tactical depth?

I think we would be better off without them. They are used because of the escalating arms race that started with EAW, continued to OP, and is furthered by the OP+ refit. More ship selection ironically leads to less variety.

This is all opinion. I'll read any criticism but I'm done with this thread and this forum outside of bug reports and mechanical info.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mog on September 11, 2003, 07:53:24 pm
I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: DH123 on September 12, 2003, 09:19:14 am
Quote:

I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.  




Which is why I miss Early Era so much . . .    
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 12, 2003, 12:24:37 pm
Quote:

Quote:

I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.  




Which is why I miss Early Era so much . . .    





But the Roms and Klingons tend not to...


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 12, 2003, 12:26:16 pm
Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 12, 2003, 02:59:23 pm
Quote:

Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.  





*wince*



Although not as bad, a stock F5 never seemed like a dream vacation to Raisa, either...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: DH123 on September 12, 2003, 05:07:36 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.  





*wince*



Although not as bad, a stock F5 never seemed like a dream vacation to Raisa, either...  




Stock F-DD with Evil Dave missions on AOTK.  Beat that!  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 12, 2003, 05:55:03 pm
I thought I just did.  Did you miss the F5 part?



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 12, 2003, 05:59:29 pm
Guys.. guys..
.. take it to the D2 forums. At some point I'm going to review all the data here and will have to reread all of this, so don't make it more difficult for me.. .. please?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Carrie on September 13, 2003, 04:46:51 pm
Now that I'm back on the forums after an absence, and have started playing the current version of OP+ 3.0, I'd just like to thank you, Firesoul. With the new classes and models, (especially adding the new patch) I've had my best gaming experience since reinstalling OP on the new patch that I've had in months, diddling with a few other games that were supposedly 'better' just for being newer. OP+ has, by far, the best replayability even in single player, of any game I know. And OP+ is a whole lot of the reason why. I'll be looking forward to the next release with neato models, of course ... But until then, I'm a happy SFCer (and old SFBer) tonight.  You're the best

Carrie

PS:

Not to be annjoying, but on a fed mission I was playing tonight, a C7V and D6DR were for some reason using what you mentioned as the Cartel skin (reddish gray, with crescent sitting on pole), while listed as being Klingon....

Also, I noticed that the MD5 is still using a different colored version of the original D5 Taldren skin, instead of the miniature D7 one like the others? And for note...  the E3Y is supposed to be the Bird of Prey from ST III, in theory, it's a Taldren added ship, and right now is on a skin from the pack that looks nothing like it
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 15, 2003, 03:28:56 am
Quote:


Not to be annjoying, but on a fed mission I was playing tonight, a C7V and D6DR were for some reason using what you mentioned as the Cartel skin (reddish gray, with crescent sitting on pole), while listed as being Klingon....

Also, I noticed that the MD5 is still using a different colored version of the original D5 Taldren skin, instead of the miniature D7 one like the others? And for note...  the E3Y is supposed to be the Bird of Prey from ST III, in theory, it's a Taldren added ship, and right now is on a skin from the pack that looks nothing like it




Most of the issues here have already been fixed. I spent a LOT of time after 3.0 was released, months ago on this. I swtiched the KD6 model back, that's the only difference. Back to green it goes.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 16, 2003, 09:18:35 am
Now, I'm going to be clear on some matters that have gotten some people all worked up:

- I'm not going to include the I-CCV I commented on previously in any OP+ I release.
- I'm not going to include any R-KCRP I described that could be created, "based on SFB's K-C7S", on the SS2 chat.

These ships are to be included into D2 shiplists by the admins themselves.



However, I am going to do a limited-distribution test release with various changes of my own:
- SFB-based MIRV-equipped ships, mostly miraks
- less fighters on ISC carriers (like everyone), but more armour on the fighters themselves.


.. and the possible next ships: a few X1 ships I would create myself.
So far, the X1 ships have been the only exception I have applied to include non-official SFB material ships to my list. A few of these ships came from Captain's logs, which is usually a nono. Now, I am thinking we need a few more.

A list:

    - F-NCLX: The Federation needs a NCL-based X1 ship. It would have 30 warps, 4 photons, and nice shields. All phasers become phX.
    - H-TRX and H-HRX: The Hydrans also need a CL-sized X1 ship. These would also have 30 warps and improved shields. The TR has no fighters but has HBs. The HR has fighters, but only fusions. # of heavy weapons would be increased to 3 (from 2) on each.
    - I-NCAX/NCSX: The ISC needs a CA-sized X1 ship. Although the I-NCA are slow modifications of I-CL/CS, the X1 conversion would do a *perfect* CA-sized X1 ship.  


I-NCA explanation:
Historically, pockets of isolated ISC space, isolated but not yet conquered, have upgraded their CLs and CSs to "system cruisers". Slow with a movement cost of 1, a subdeck has been installed with 1 more heavy weapon, and 8 APRs. The ship has only 24 warps, but was about CA-sized.
A X1 conversion of these ships would make them about right. The warps would be increased to 32, and the ship would have enough power to move right.


I find there's a need for these ships, to fill in gaps in classes that other races currently have occupied. Also, the ISC needs a CA-cost xship.

 
Edit: I-CMX didn't cut it. Not big enough.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 16, 2003, 12:07:29 pm
I look forward to the next release.  Looks to be a good one, all things considered.


Does anyone know off-hand if specific pointers are being added for the various Fred BCHs or should I try and search through this thread to see if I can find the answer myself?


Thanks in advance...


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Strafer on September 16, 2003, 12:40:09 pm
Idefix, if you're referring to the 4 new BCx's released Friday, I'd think odds are good.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 16, 2003, 05:32:12 pm
Precisely, Strafer!  How did you know!?  

I was a tad crestfallen when I went ot install them last night and found I was still stuck with the one model pointer.  


Went with the BCG Kirov.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Carrie on September 16, 2003, 06:38:28 pm
Also, since you have paint shop now, and were talking about doing skins specific to specific empires using a particular ship, do you have more blueish Hydranized Klingon cruiser skin for the H-D7H in the works by any chance? (or was it the D6H?) Or is this ship intended to fool people by seeming to be a Klingon ship?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 16, 2003, 11:33:23 pm
Quote:

Also, since you have paint shop now, and were talking about doing skins specific to specific empires using a particular ship, do you have more blueish Hydranized Klingon cruiser skin for the H-D7H in the works by any chance? (or was it the D6H?) Or is this ship intended to fool people by seeming to be a Klingon ship?  




I was the D7 Anarchist I believe and no it was not a weapon of espionage.  It was merely meant to be a weapon turned against it's creator sort of thing.  The original was a bit meaner than the current version with all of the waist phasers swapped out for P-G's......Ugly.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on September 18, 2003, 08:36:15 am
Just for laughs and giggles I use a D-10B by Atrahasis that has been Hydranized by me as the D7H.

Speaking of turning weapons against their masters; Atrahasis did some specs for the IKV Hood, a Fed cruiser captured during the General War. I have always thought it would be neat if the IKV Hood wasn?t a Constitution Refit Heavy Cruiser and made it a Ulysses Class (stock FBCH) using WickedZombie45?s recently released USS Babylon.

Both the ?IKV Hood? and Hydranized D-10 retextures are available at STMODDIRECTORY.

At any rate, the more I read this thread, the better it sounds. Now to get it released, LOL.

Qapla!

KF
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 18, 2003, 08:49:40 am
yeah, it's due for testing...
.. as for the X1 'more ships' idea, I think I'll drop it for now. I'll let the ship creations stay in ADB's hands.

Currently, the installer is about 55 mb. I just need to work on a couple of more models.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 18, 2003, 08:53:28 am
btw, this is the anarchist currently in use in my 3.1:
   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 18, 2003, 01:03:08 pm
That looks good......stupid Hydrans...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Carrie on September 18, 2003, 07:29:05 pm
Yay! I'll be looking forward to seeing 3.1 out soon then

I'm jealous of all of you who will be testing it as well, cause it sounds like its going to be even more awesome than 3.0 is

Thanks, Firesoul! And I like the new model for the Anarchist!

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 19, 2003, 06:21:04 am
Because of SS2, all the testers who have volunteered before are all.. busy. :P~
.. I am sitting on this and waiting for the campaign to be over.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 19, 2003, 08:55:30 am
Looks like a fun thing to try out.  Smaller but hopefully more survivable ISC fighter loadouts.  Hopefully survivable enough that a 3-pack can square off against 2 AMDs and still have a fighter left for recall...

And I'd love to see what the Mirak get for MIRVs...

Awaiting your next excellent release...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on September 21, 2003, 04:14:22 pm
Is it ready yet? The wait should be almost over right?

Qapla!

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 21, 2003, 05:54:25 pm
Quote:

Is it ready yet? The wait should be almost over right?
Qapla!
KF  




I played with it last night with a couple of pals. There are still some tweaks to do..
.. and I just KNOW that if somehow I release this during SS2, I will spoil some of their fun.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 25, 2003, 01:48:36 pm
This thread should be now closed.
.. please use the  3.1 corrections thread .


-- Luc
Title: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 09:07:17 am
I'd like to "close" the previous correction thread and start on a new one. I will probably use this thread as a kind of "notepad", writing down my own thoughts in here, as well as listening to yours.


.. For starters:
People want addtional model separation. For example, they want model separation for anything that use the same model, but are in different races.

ie: Assets/Models/KFF is being used by the Klingons, the Romulans *AND* The Korgath Cartel. If all 3 could use their own Model path and mod files, modders could assign different models, textures, etc to each.

ie: Someone wanted the Romulan MegaHawk (from R7) added to OP+. I've skipped over it because it was shown with fighters, but am currently rethinking that I could work around it: The MegaHawk is only shown with fighter modules attached. I could probably figure out the BPV difference of attaching E modules, and turning this thing into a full PFT. (Ship description states which modules couldn't be assigned)  ..

ie: Some people don't like the textures on some of the modules I have picked for OP+ 3.0 ..  .. like how the KE4, KD5 and KD5W aren't using the klingon textures, but grey blah textures. Telling me that a model's texture is crap isn't good enough. Asking me to do Textures isn't good enough either as I've never even done this before.. but you can voice your opinions here.

ie: I've been carefulyl chosing models to put together the 3.0 package. If you think there's a better model, yet identical, model for a ship, I want to hear about it. Don't go overboard. A high number of poligons on a ship canslow down the game. I want to know why that model is better than the one I already picked.

ie: You've found a good model for me. Put a URL for download, please! I may already have it, or seen it... but I will look probably look at it anyways.


-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Pestalence on August 02, 2003, 10:09:59 am
Firesoul, have you looked at the models in the D2 model pack by P81 and Athrahasis?

if not, then you can DL the pack here at :

http://www.nightsoftware.com/effhq/scr2.html

at the bottom of the page... these ships i think are FASA and i have both a High res pack and Low Res pack.. contains Roms, Fed, and Klink ships...

 Thanks

PS.... for some reason to me, it seems that the models you added only show up in Heavy Cruiser selections for each race... I may be wrong, but that is how it seems to me... Is there separation based upon hull Size? I mean a XFG should be in the Friggits (which it is.. but using as an example) and not heavy cruisers... I might be wrong on this and have just set it up wrongly... I'll check again later....


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on August 02, 2003, 11:42:35 am
Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 02, 2003, 01:09:13 pm
Well, if you want to use my L9 re-skin and my Fed DD model, you are welcome to them:




There is a re-skin of the F5 for the Romulan Empire (in the other thread - has blue feathers), and a tri-nacelle version of each F5 for the F6/KFR.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 02, 2003, 01:13:03 pm
Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...





Whoah - where did you get that improved Ark Royal (Fed CV)?  I couldn't fine one, and that looks *fine*!
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 01:17:16 pm
Quote:

Firesoul, have you looked at the models in the D2 model pack by P81 and Athrahasis?

if not, then you can DL the pack here at :

http://www.nightsoftware.com/effhq/scr2.html

at the bottom of the page... these ships i think are FASA and i have both a High res pack and Low Res pack.. contains Roms, Fed, and Klink ships...

 Thanks

PS.... for some reason to me, it seems that the models you added only show up in Heavy Cruiser selections for each race... I may be wrong, but that is how it seems to me... Is there separation based upon hull Size? I mean a XFG should be in the Friggits (which it is.. but using as an example) and not heavy cruisers... I might be wrong on this and have just set it up wrongly... I'll check again later....





The there of this mod is SFB accuracy, without sacrificing Taldren's style. In other words, if the Taldren model does the job, then I don't replace it. Of course, there are some exceptions:

1- The Taldren D5s are plain ugly, IMHO. Some people have complained about the D5s I am now using, but the problems aren't anything I can't fix.

2- I never understood why the old-style models were never used by Taldren, onolder ships. That's why I made sure I have older models for some Federation ships, and matching updated (TMP) versions which are more in Taldren's style.
ie: FECA, FEDD, FEFF, FTG  -->  FCA, FDD, FFF, FTG+(I guess I should make those FETG and FTG)

3- Some of the Taldren models weren't "cool" enough.. Like the Gorn replacements.. or some individual ships I might've replaced.


Another function of the mod is to indeed separate the ship classes, in case people (such as some of you) want to put in their own models. Heck, why don't you put together your own modelpacks for use with this project?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 01:25:22 pm
Quote:

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?  




It's actually 2 SkyHawk and 2 SparrowHawk modules.. and the ship description says no F (mauler) or J (PlaS) modules.
That leaves: EK, MK, .. I am not fully familiar with the other modules config. I'll have to think about it.

PS. There seems to be a lighter version of the Modular DN ( a DNL ) called a OmniHawk. That could use the same modules.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 01:27:59 pm
Quote:


Well, if you want to use my L9 re-skin and my Fed DD model, you are welcome to them:





Thank you. I downloaded it this morning, actually. I don't think I'll be using it since it changes the style a bit, but I like the idea.
Idea: Add a 3rd engine to the back of Taldren's F5 BoP to make a F6/KFR variant... what do you think? That would certainly match the style.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 01:30:59 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...





Whoah - where did you get that improved Ark Royal (Fed CV)?  I couldn't fine one, and that looks *fine*!  




 Here, I think.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 02, 2003, 03:03:44 pm
I was referring to Renegade's CVA http://mywebpages.comcast.net/renegade001//gallery/SCR00024.htm.  Looks like an improvement over the Taldren model (a little).

Anyway, few more suggestions from my little ship-mill here.

First, a D2 model for F-POL:


And a modified D2 model for the rest - chosen because it has all the right attributes for the Fed FF - two warp engines, small, and can be easily modified into the DW and HDW hulls.  (This is the FASA 'Baker'-class, btw)





   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 06:02:51 pm
The F-POL is TNG.

.. but I *do* like the HDW and will have to compare mine with it. Where can I download it from?
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 02, 2003, 06:31:46 pm
EDIT: Uploading now, it'll be done in a moment.  Link here.  I will upload another one tomorrow - but this one is mostly correct.  I need to tweak the break models some, and I'd like to move the hardpoints around some.  These will certainly work fine, though, and should look in-game exactly as the 'finished' ones will.

And that F-POL is not TNG - it's the 'Grissom' model, seen in 'Star Trek III'.  In fact, it was seen first on screen before the Excelsior was.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on August 02, 2003, 06:42:50 pm
The R-KWR is using the Snipe frigate model, the KR UI, is in the Light Cruiser section and it is classified as a New Heavy Cruiser. That's one mixed up ship. This is in the DL without models.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on August 02, 2003, 06:46:55 pm
I dont see the D5W listed in any of the ship libraries or skirmish/Co-op ace selection screens....I see it in the shiplist though.....

!?!

I'll check it out again...  

Oh yeah...No model DL....
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 08:39:12 pm
Quote:

The R-KWR is using the Snipe frigate model, the KR UI, is in the Light Cruiser section and it is classified as a New Heavy Cruiser. That's one mixed up ship. This is in the DL without models.  




Confirmed. I just updated the download since it doesn't affect or break anything.
This affects the no-models installer only.

How to fix yourself, if you don't want to redownload/reinstall:
Copy the contents of Assets/Models/KCL to opplus/models/RD5W and opplus/models/RD5
Rename the .mod files within these destination directories to "rd5w.mod", "rd5w_brk.mod" and "rd5.mod", "rd5_brk.mod"


OR..

Redownload/Reinstall.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 02, 2003, 08:40:18 pm
Quote:

I dont see the D5W listed in any of the ship libraries or skirmish/Co-op ace selection screens....I see it in the shiplist though.....

!?!

I'll check it out again...  
Oh yeah...No model DL....




Look under heavy cruisers. It's a "New Heavy Cruiser", after all.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on August 02, 2003, 11:38:13 pm
F-PV and F-PV+ have wrong model links.  Shiplist linking to FPC.MOD but there is no model folder called that.   No model shows up when playing game.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 12:03:47 am
Quote:

F-PV and F-PV+ have wrong model links.  Shiplist linking to FPC.MOD but there is no model folder called that.   No model shows up when playing game.  




Oh. Aiie. Ok.
I'll update the installer(s), it will not be in "model.siz" just yet. That way the game will remain compatible to all.

One can also put in some model in there temporarily. It was supposed to be another copy of the FPOL/FPOL+ directory.

-- Luc


Edit: Temporary fix now included in updated installer, if that's easier for you. No changes done to 5 primary files (those that are checked for differences between hosts) so this is the same shiplist version.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on August 03, 2003, 12:08:44 am
Quote:

Whoah - where did you get that improved Ark Royal (Fed CV)?  I couldn't fine one, and that looks *fine*!  




That Fed CVA is by Gow aka Jrstandfast. Most of his models can be had at StarFleet Universe, but it looks like that ones not there. If you have issues finding it, drop me a line.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on August 03, 2003, 12:32:10 am
I linked the F-PV to the F-POL+ model manually.  Is there actually a police carrier model?

Few questions:

1)  Did you mean to link the F-FFT, F-CFF, and F-CFF+ to the taldren frigate model?

These next two are preference-type questions:

2)  I think the F-DN should be an old Federation Class model, and the F-DN+ on down should be the USS Star League version.  This is the type of pattern you followed with the F-CA, F-DD, etc. ship classes.  I can understand the F-BB still linking to Taldren model since it was conjectural and would have been in TMP era style.

3)  The F-CVL is a F-GSC, why not link it to the Taldren F-CA model?  I think the carrier model you have is cool looking, but it is kinda too different from a F-GSC look......ya know what I'm sayin'.  I kinda feel the same way about the F-CVS which is derived from the F-CA also.  Again this is just preference and I can always change it myself....so no biggie.

I do like most of your reasoning in Fed model selection so far.  I like what you did with the F-NCL class and making the F-NCM the actual Miranda class with the torp bar added.  That made it a nice match for Kirk and his F-CA+ in the Wrath of Khan movie.  I also think the Soyuz class works well as an NCA.

Excellent shiplist.....now on to "scrutinizing" the klingons.    
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 12:50:49 am
Quote:

I linked the F-PV to the F-POL+ model manually.  Is there actually a police carrier model?

Few questions:

1)  Did you mean to link the F-FFT, F-CFF, and F-CFF+ to the taldren frigate model?





Uh.. no. It's supposed to be different. Oh well, next version.. which will be a while.


Quote:


These next two are preference-type questions:

2)  I think the F-DN should be an old Federation Class model, and the F-DN+ on down should be the USS Star League version.  This is the type of pattern you followed with the F-CA, F-DD, etc. ship classes.  I can understand the F-BB still linking to Taldren model since it was conjectural and would have been in TMP era style.




Histerical Raisins.. uhh.. Historical Reasons. In SFB, the F-DN gets upgraded to a DN+ and later to the DNG. Do you have a triple-warp TMP-style FDN? I didn't see any. Same thing for the BB. Do you have a 4-warp FBB in both the TOS and TMP styles? (I think there's a TOS-style on FleetDock 13)

Quote:


3)  The F-CVL is a F-GSC, why not link it to the Taldren F-CA model?  I think the carrier model you have is cool looking, but it is kinda too different from a F-GSC look......ya know what I'm sayin'.  I kinda feel the same way about the F-CVS which is derived from the F-CA also.  Again this is just preference and I can always change it myself....so no biggie.





Ah.. well.. to tell you the truth it was just because it looked cool. It still looks kinda like a CA too, but you're right that it can be switched back through some copying.

Quote:


I do like most of your reasoning in Fed model selection so far.  I like what you did with the F-NCL class and making the F-NCM the actual Miranda class with the torp bar added.  That made it a nice match for Kirk and his F-CA+ in the Wrath of Khan movie.  I also think the Soyuz class works well as an NCA.




Agreed.  


-- Luc

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 03, 2003, 02:17:26 am
Quote:

Do you have a triple-warp TMP-style FDN?




What, like this?



(This, btw, is from my old shiplist whereby I added an X-DN with a pair of 'Heavy Photon' launchers - in blue)  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 06:27:05 am
That would make a perfect TMP FDN. I'll see if I already have it or not.

ie: here's the TOS FDN I'm looking at. According to the Fed DN+ description, its refit was "so extensive that it is listed as a separate class." So These 2 models would indeed do the trick.
 

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 07:24:21 am
It doesn't look like I have that TMP FDN. Do you know where I can find it?
Edit: don't forget to let me know who made it.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 03, 2003, 08:19:58 am
Firesoul,

Check out Skinman?s great stuff:

http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/leigons/Founders/ISC.htm

X-ICL = ISC Tug  (X-ICA is too dark when you d/l)

X-IDN = ISC Monitor

http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/leigons/Founders/HYDRAN.htm

The Blackhawk is pretty cool too.

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 09:00:00 am
The ICL doesn't quite look like a tug, but I'm sure it could be modified to become so. It's a good starting point.
Thank you. ;>
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on August 03, 2003, 11:15:31 am
Quote:

Do you have a triple-warp TMP-style FDN?
-- Luc
   




Is this your looking for?
It's by P81. I don't know if he's still among us or giving permissions to his material, but this is a good looking Ascension.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 01:28:08 pm
http://www.frost-works.com/schtupp/capitalships.htm

I think that DN+ is Lord Schtupp's creation.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 03, 2003, 02:38:00 pm
FIreSoul, would you mind looking into the L-NCAL (or variants)? I would have expected anything with that designation to be replaced by the new SFB L-NCC specs. I haven't looked through the other races' lists, either. Are the old Taldren NCCs and NCALs replaced or retained? If retained, I would suggest they be restricted so players are using the balanced NCCs by default.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 02:45:59 pm
Quote:

FIreSoul, would you mind looking into the L-NCAL (or variants)? I would have expected anything with that designation to be replaced by the new SFB L-NCC specs. I haven't looked through the other races' lists, either. Are the old Taldren NCCs and NCALs replaced or retained? If retained, I would suggest they be restricted so players are using the balanced NCCs by default.  




The NCAL and the DWC have been retained. I don't mind setting them to R.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 02:47:27 pm
Quote:

http://www.frost-works.com/schtupp/capitalships.htm

I think that DN+ is Lord Schtupp's creation.

   




That's the TOS FDN I showed. I'm looking for the one I've been shown above by dderidex.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 03, 2003, 03:09:36 pm
Sorry about the delay, I have it posted now (it's mine - it's base on the P81 BB that comes with the 'D2 Model Pack' that's been around forever.  I redid the mesh some, removed a warp engine, tinkered with the impulse and secondary hull, etc - and retextured the saucer to reflect the DN designation and name rather than BB).

Anyway, here is the DN I showed above.

Also, be sure to pick up the latest frigate/dw pack.  I've updated the models quite a bit - higher poly base mesh to work from, added torpedoes to them, improved break models and hardpoints.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 03:14:20 pm
Ya, OK. I was puzzled since you showed the screen capture it was a strong indication you had it. That dreadnought I would wager is a unique ship. I don't remember seeing it anywhere but that DDeridex will be able to accomodate you as it might be his kitbash. Also, check your email. I sent some pics of a line of missing Gorn stuff. Some of those have gone missing over time. Especialy one I don't have a jpeg of. Reply if interested, ignore if not. Probably best to stick with Feral's stuff since he has about everything covered.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 03:19:36 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Do you have a triple-warp TMP-style FDN?
-- Luc
   




Is this your looking for?
It's by P81. I don't know if he's still among us or giving permissions to his material, but this is a good looking Ascension.  




Do you know where I could find this one too?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 03:29:43 pm
Quote:

Ya, OK. I was puzzled since you showed the screen capture it was a strong indication you had it. That dreadnought I would wager is a unique ship. I don't remember seeing it anywhere but that DDeridex will be able to accomodate you as it might be his kitbash. Also, check your email. I sent some pics of a line of missing Gorn stuff. Some of those have gone missing over time. Especialy one I don't have a jpeg of. Reply if interested, ignore if not. Probably best to stick with Feral's stuff since he has about everything covered.  




Yes, I downloaded Lord Schtupp's. The current ideas I'm having concerning Federation DNs are the following:
F-DN from Lord Schtupp
F-DN+ from p81 as linked above by SPQR Renegade001. (please link/send)
F-DNG (and variants) from dderidex
F-BB by p81 (which I have found)

In that order, the upgrade path would both be SFB accurate and look nice (yeah, the simple requirements.  )


BTW, those are very nice gorns that would do great X2 ships... but yes, I will stick with the ones from FeralYards.
Thanks!
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 03:48:59 pm
You are so right. Feral did us a huge favor with all of those varients he did. He just about made the Hydran, Lyran and LDR plug and play. How cool is that?

I have a question for you. I pretty much deleted all of the scout and commando ships from my library to make the list tidy. The thought struck me that perhaps I killed some specific ships that might be called upon in some scennarios. Do I have a reason to worry?

Edit; If you would like I could forward a copy of the Ascencion. Never mind, I managed to read where you requested as much. Should be there in a bit.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 04:18:20 pm
Thank you. ;>
I've found something very very similar in the sfcd2_hr.exe installer. It's especially interesting since the FDN from Lord Schtupp is marked as the NCC 2101 and this TMP refit is marked as the 2101-A. However, it's not as cool as the Ascension. (will have to look at both side-by-side)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Lepton1 on August 03, 2003, 04:24:17 pm
Quote:

Quote:

http://www.frost-works.com/schtupp/capitalships.htm

I think that DN+ is Lord Schtupp's creation.

   




That's the TOS FDN I showed. I'm looking for the one I've been shown above by dderidex.




His models are some of the best.  Any TOS ship in the mod should have his name on it.  I mean what a kick-ass model.  WOW!!
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on August 03, 2003, 04:51:25 pm
 
Quote:

  I've found something very very similar in the sfcd2_hr.exe installer




I believe the best TMP "3 nacelle" DN model is from Pneumonic's D2 Mod high res model pack.  There is a USS Star League model that is perfect for a F-DN+ in my opinion.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 05:18:11 pm
Quote:

 
Quote:

  I've found something very very similar in the sfcd2_hr.exe installer




I believe the best TMP "3 nacelle" DN model is from Pneumonic's D2 Mod high res model pack.  There is a USS Star League model that is perfect for a F-DN+ in my opinion.  




Bingo.
This is the result:

F-DN+ (Left), F-DN (Center), F-DNG (right)
 

Of course, that will only be included in the next release.
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 06:05:47 pm
The D2 mod is truely nice. I tend to think the Ascencion is  the  choice for the Federation DNL. I mucked with the textures a bit as it was a conversion from a nonillunibated model and you can tell if you start to look at it. My personal choice is for nonilluminated warps. As far as I can tell that is a TNG developmant. Certainly not TMP era.  

Edit: Pitfalls to avoid in model selection. Since your going throught the process of selecting the best models you can get for the class I wanted to share something I learned to do. Take a look at the size of the folder that contains the new dreadnought by P81. It's 10.4 Meg of goodness. The problem that presents is you try to load too many such models it will bog the game down. Slow refresh rate and short hangs when sound events play. You can salvage some models by grey scaling and even reducing the size of the illumination maps. Even some of the seldom seen texture maps like the undersides of the model can be reduced to 256 x 256.  I was able to reduce that one to 8.9 without touching the main textures. Still too big. Most computers can't deal with many of that size model. Even if you do have a smoking video card.  I usualy won't use a model over 4 Meg for this reason. And 20-35 Meg is getting pretty common. Looks great in a model viewer but you better have massive video bandwidth to play it. Just something to consider when looking at stuff.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 03, 2003, 06:08:32 pm
 Dderidex, thank you for the link to P81's Explorer Class FBCH, I have a several versions that were kitbashed by Dark Matrix to include a Reliant style and a 3 engine DN version with a roll bar over the saucer. I will use this for Mirror Universe Imperials, LOL.  BTW: Any problem with those Baker Class kitbashes will be added to the FASA to SFC Collection? I'm almost ready for an update (a day or two).

Firesoul, since many of these additional ships are straying from the Taldren-wanna-be mode I thought I'd repitch that many of the Klingon Academy ships were converted into SFC and should be considered for use. The Suvwl' Qeh makes a great KCX, LOL and the Klingon Academy Tholians are too cool to ignore:



Besides, I have an entire race block based on Klingon Academy Tholians. I'm just waiting for Peter Davies to get my site up and running

Somebody post a link to P81's Ascension please. [I have his Yorktown and his Star League] How could I have missed that one?  One more MUST HAVE for the P81 collection, LOL.

I prefer Atrahasis' version of the Ascension (it uses P81 textures and has a more accurate deflector dish and overall build).

Qapla!

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on August 03, 2003, 08:14:43 pm
 
Quote:

 Bingo.
This is the result:

F-DN+ (Left), F-DN (Center), F-DNG (right)
 




Yep that works.  This should give the "Fed dreads" some good model variation to represent refits visually.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 03, 2003, 09:09:44 pm
Few more ships, no download yet, but soon.

Fed FF and FFB.  I liked the Taldren layout of the FF, but wanted to use the Grissom as the POL, and the Bakers (as above) as the DW/HDW.  Needed a transition craft, so, made one:





Would fit in this mod pretty good, IMHO.  Of course, anyone else is welcome to any of the kitbashes/retextures/ships I do - I really am not very anal about permissions and such.  Just credit my work and the original author's in the readme, and I don't care what you do with it.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 09:33:23 pm
Quote:


Edit: Pitfalls to avoid in model selection. Since your going throught the process of selecting the best models you can get for the class I wanted to share something I learned to do. Take a look at the size of the folder that contains the new dreadnought by P81. It's 10.4 Meg of goodness. The problem that presents is you try to load too many such models it will bog the game down. Slow refresh rate and short hangs when sound events play. You can salvage some models by grey scaling and even reducing the size of the illumination maps. Even some of the seldom seen texture maps like the undersides of the model can be reduced to 256 x 256.  I was able to reduce that one to 8.9 without touching the main textures. Still too big. Most computers can't deal with many of that size model. Even if you do have a smoking video card.  I usualy won't use a model over 4 Meg for this reason. And 20-35 Meg is getting pretty common. Looks great in a model viewer but you better have massive video bandwidth to play it. Just something to consider when looking at stuff.




When you're reducing the sizes of the BMPs, are they being stretched to match the model?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 10:19:24 pm
Stretched to match the model? To clarify, say your looking over a set of 512 x 512 bmp's. They can easily be resized to 256 x 256 and will map properly. Or even 128 x 128 or 64 x 64. I think the way the things lay are by relative coordinates on the bitmap. I'm pretty sure any binary multiple will work (eg 32,64,128,256...etc.) Another trick is reducing the color depth. Many illumination maps were never reduced to a gray scale to reduce the data. Not hard to knock a 796k texture down to 66k sometimes. Times 4 textures and you can reduce a 5.5 Meg model down to a more managable 2.8 Meg. And in many instances can't detect it unless you look at it at just the right angle with the model viewer. And in game fat chance if your selective with the textures you play with. This makes a huge difference playing some of Nuclearwessel's fleet actions. You start adding up some of the models plus the game engine and it dawns on you why the game stutters or pauses to load a sound event. There is a reason why the Taldren models are 2 Meg or less.

You can even do this with some main textures with no or little loss of detail. I got into the habit of doing this when installing new models recently. Once your used to it it can be done in few minutes time and I believe it is worth the investment to keep everything running smoothly. The first thing I look at is the illumination maps and usualy use MS paint to stretch/skew by a new ratio And PSpro to reduce color depth or convert to grey scale. They always seem to map correctly if I keep the same proportions (ie reducing by 25%, 33%, 50%, 66%.... whatever, so long as I do so in the vetical and the horizontal) but I think any video set up will handle it so long as it's a standard size (ie 32x32,64x64,128x128... etc.) I just want to hedge here in case someone finds their video driver won't map a 96x96 map. Mine has no problem mapping a 512x512 main texture with a 64x64 illumination map.  Hope that helps.    
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 10:25:29 pm
If a model is mapped to use "file1.bmp" .. and there's also:
file1_2.bmp  (1/2 size)
file1_3.bmp  (1/4 size)

.. will the game use these other sizes for when the ship is at a distance?
.. Or were these merely provided so that players can swap in their own choices?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 03, 2003, 10:36:01 pm
Those are for when the ship is at a distance, yes.  SFC2/OP can support up to 3 different LOD models for various ranges - the model's mesh, though, must include essentially 3 different copies of the same ship.  Since the game can use these models at extreme ranges, the designers took advantage of this fact and did 3 different models at descending polygon counts and smaller and smaller textures.

Honestly, though, this isn't a big enough savings to be worth it, IMHO.  Trippling the amount of work a modeller has to do to support older video cards is well and good for Taldren to do, but I never bother.  Indeed, on most the kitbhashes I do, if there is multiple LOD models in the mesh, I just delete them and use the highest quality one.  The poly count really isn't that different - it will never make a difference (at least, not anymore).  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 03, 2003, 10:41:11 pm
The LOD's are selected strictly at given distances. Meaning it uses say CA_1_1, CA_1_1i, CA_1_2, CA_1_2i...etc. from distance 0 to x. Switches to set CA_2_1, CA_2_1i, CA_2_2, CA_2_2i... etc. from distance x to point y. Perhaps a third set if provided. I've only noticed models with up to 3 levels of detail. I don't know if the model itself determines this or works together with the engine to save video processing. Not my field of understanding. I really wonder if LOD's consume more video RAM but have to assume that is the reason they exist.

Edit: I read DDeridex's post and havt to say I'm using a lower performance video card. I have a 64Meg ATI and experience some stutters when a fairly large number of high res models are loaded. One on one scirmish no. NW's base defense... get's pretty jittery. Should I upgrade to a smoking new video card? Sure, I will sometime or another. Till then...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 03, 2003, 11:57:06 pm
I am aiming towards "medium" quality models..
.. because the large large sized models affect both the game, and the size of the package.

Edit:
Guh. The Romulan StarHawk PF model from FeralYards was taking 2.3 mb by itself. I reduced the size of the .BMPs. That should help loadtimes a bit when launching PFs. I'll also check the other PFs I downloaded from there.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 04, 2003, 04:23:28 am
Ok.. .. now to the next part of the changes: Klingon ships.

I've been thinking about splitting up the KDNs into separate models. There's 2 ways I can do that:
- include models for some or all of the KDNs, but each DN class gets its own model.
- copy the somewhat acceptable model from the Taldren directories, one model per DN class all identical.


This would allow those of you who like to mod everything to be able to do so. The different classes would be:

      KDN -> KC9/KC8/KC5  (Klingon Fanatic's 3-warp DN would fit in really well. KF, would you send it to me?)
      KC6 -> KEDN  (only the warps could be in TOS style. The rest has to be like the others since a C6 upgrades to a C9, later. If there was a way to put TOS-style engines on a model like the one KF uses, I'd be very happy.)
      KDNH -> KC10  (thinking of using the stock Taldren model for this one. Not SFB accurate but would look nice here.)


I already have a model for the B11K. (KSBB). The B10's own model is acceptable.  I am also planning to change the B10V's UI and Model to use same as the normal B10's.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 04, 2003, 10:16:20 am
It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 04, 2003, 10:54:38 am
Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 04, 2003, 10:57:52 am
Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recentlycause I just figured it went C7 - C8 - C9 in combat effectiveness. It also said the C7 is classified as a dreadnought. I bet FireSoul knew this.    
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 04, 2003, 10:58:45 am
Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




The C8 and the C9 are so close to each other, the distinction is very minor.
The C7 is actually a completely different class.


So.. Who's got models?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 04, 2003, 11:17:13 am
Quote:

Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




The C8 and the C9 are so close to each other, the distinction is very minor.
The C7 is actually a completely different class.


So.. Who's got models?  




There is a good C5 model here:

http://www.nightsoftware.com/erasofwar/index.html

in the shipyards/klingon/middle/dreadnaughts section.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 04, 2003, 11:36:25 am
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




The C8 and the C9 are so close to each other, the distinction is very minor.
The C7 is actually a completely different class.


So.. Who's got models?  




There is a good C5 model here:

http://www.nightsoftware.com/erasofwar/index.html

in the shipyards/klingon/middle/dreadnaughts section.  




That site would be good.. if it wasn't down so much. I quite capable of maintaining a more reliable site hosted on a 486, much less the dual PII I have at home for server. Jeez.. they're running a httpd server on a windows box, aren't they.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 04, 2003, 01:34:32 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




The C8 and the C9 are so close to each other, the distinction is very minor.
The C7 is actually a completely different class.


So.. Who's got models?  




There is a good C5 model here:

http://www.nightsoftware.com/erasofwar/index.html

in the shipyards/klingon/middle/dreadnaughts section.  




That site would be good.. if it wasn't down so much. I quite capable of maintaining a more reliable site hosted on a 486, much less the dual PII I have at home for server. Jeez.. they're running a httpd server on a windows box, aren't they.




Yeah, it's a bear getting anything off of that site but they are very nice models.  If you want me to send it to you in E-mail just PM me you address and when I get home I'll send it to you.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 04, 2003, 02:34:53 pm
FireSoul, I'll go ahead and send it. About 820k zipped. Should be in the pipeline.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 04, 2003, 04:51:37 pm
Quote:

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  




And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.


I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.


I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 04, 2003, 04:55:24 pm
Quote:

 can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen




Really?  See, I always liked the FASA L-9, and I like my TMP-texture of it for the F5 (see the first page of this thread).  Maybe just me?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 04, 2003, 04:58:07 pm
Quote:

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  




If you fly Klingon much at all, you'll know the C9 and its cariants is huge steaming pile of doo-doo and the C8s are most definitely an upgrade, but still not incredibly good.  C10K and C5s are the preferred DN types.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 04, 2003, 07:53:20 pm
Oh, Now you tell me. Where were ya when the Kzinti were disrespecting my D5W? Besides, disruptors just don't leave that crisp smell of hot ozone I crave so much. Not like an enveloping torp when your opponent's shield facings are just about all gone. You can turn but you can't hide.

We now return you to our regularly schedualed topic  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 04, 2003, 09:54:09 pm
Quote:

Quote:

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  




And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  




That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 04, 2003, 10:08:48 pm
Firesoul,

Please e-mail me so I can fire off the KDN of JrStandfast's I retextured if you still want it.

Qapla!

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Bonk on August 05, 2003, 01:44:22 am
I just did an uninstall (after uninstalling OP+ 3) and clean install of OP last night and after the uninstall I noticed some model folders left over. I'm not sure if they were from your mod, but you may want to double check the uninstaller to see if any were missed.

Is there a rationale for putting custom model folders in the root of the Assets\Models folder? I have put all the custom model folders in the mod I'm working on in one subfolder under Assets\Models.  Are people using the root of the Assets\Models folder to avoid swelling the size of the shiplist file? Is it detrimental to use one subfolder which increases the shiplist file size?

It makes the uninstall easier for me, I remove all the models added with my mod with one line in the NSIS uninstall section:
RMDir /r "$INSTDIR\Assets\Models\SFB_OP"
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 05, 2003, 06:44:31 am
Quote:

I just did an uninstall (after uninstalling OP+ 3) and clean install of OP last night and after the uninstall I noticed some model folders left over. I'm not sure if they were from your mod, but you may want to double check the uninstaller to see if any were missed.

Is there a rationale for putting custom model folders in the root of the Assets\Models folder? I have put all the custom model folders in the mod I'm working on in one subfolder under Assets\Models.  Are people using the root of the Assets\Models folder to avoid swelling the size of the shiplist file? Is it detrimental to use one subfolder which increases the shiplist file size?

It makes the uninstall easier for me, I remove all the models added with my mod with one line in the NSIS uninstall section:
RMDir /r "$INSTDIR\Assets\Models\SFB_OP"  




I dunno. It's really all up to what you think is proper. Me, since I have more than just models, I put everything under opplus/. Then, from there, I copy the shiplist files.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 05, 2003, 12:30:52 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  




And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  




That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.  




If you'll take a closer look, the nose section of the boom has changed rather substantially, and its size is much bigger.


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN.  Can't help ya there...lol.





 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 05, 2003, 02:44:00 pm
Quote:


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN. Can't help ya there...lol.





I know, but it's small details like that which makes all the difference. I could just pick any model and slap 'em on, but if given some effort, things can actually become accurate and more pleasurable.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 05, 2003, 04:16:25 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  




And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  




That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.  




If you'll take a closer look, the nose section of the boom has changed rather substantially, and its size is much bigger.


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN.  Can't help ya there...lol.





 




But Dog, don't forget this part:

  For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.

the result is that the C5 gets it's own floder......perfect.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: RazalYllib on August 05, 2003, 05:47:29 pm
Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

This is by no means a complaint or any disatisfaction with the fabulous work FS has done for all of us,  just an observation on the 'historical' source material.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 05, 2003, 05:56:01 pm
Quote:

Quote:


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN. Can't help ya there...lol.





I know, but it's small details like that which makes all the difference. I could just pick any model and slap 'em on, but if given some effort, things can actually become accurate and more pleasurable.  




I think the main point I'm trying to make is that it follows the Klingon "look" for everything from a D6 on up to (in this case) a C5 or other DN...yet is it BIGGER, has another warp nacelle (which is correct) and is sufficiently different on the boom section as to easily differentiate it from any D7 you're likely to see.  It's even clearly NOT a C7 with a center warp nacelle slapped on.


Of course, it's a matter of taste and we always have the option of putting our own models in (which is why I didn't apply the OP+ model pack, just the shiplist).  


I am merely offering up a suggestion regarding a very nice model that "fits" within the Klingon style rather nicely.


I really haven't seen too many custom Klingon DNs out there.  The only other Klingon "big ship" models I like are Gow's reworks of the KCV and KBB.  There's never any shortage of cool Fred models...but most of the other races don't have much to choose from.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Jwest on August 05, 2003, 06:12:19 pm
Just having an "It seems to me" moment regarding X-weapons, which you are of course welcome to ignore. I like the way you've set an upgrade cycle between X1 and X2 ships, but it occurs to me that there's a logical predecessor to the X1 ships - Bases. Presumably before the miniaturization of these enhanced weapons (and shields, and powersources) is sufficient to put them on ships, these weapons would be available for defense outposts, base stations, and starbases. Or even Planetary Defense bases.

Just a thought - but wouldn't a generation X2 Starbase be a nasty thing to encounter in your shiny new Xcruiser - <G>  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Fahrenheit on August 05, 2003, 06:13:08 pm
Quote:

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.





How about 4 PF's?  8 fighters is 2/3 of a squadron, 4 PF's is 2/3 of a squadron (in SFB).  If PF squadrons are generally smaller in SFC, then how about 2?  I just don't care for odd-numbered PF flotillas, except, of course, on the ChickenHawk.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: RazalYllib on August 05, 2003, 07:46:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.





How about 4 PF's?  8 fighters is 2/3 of a squadron, 4 PF's is 2/3 of a squadron (in SFB).  If PF squadrons are generally smaller in SFC, then how about 2?  I just don't care for odd-numbered PF flotillas, except, of course, on the ChickenHawk.

 




4 seems way too many for what was essential a Command Cruiser variant of the Firehawk with fighter bays welded on.
3 would be more like it.

Romulans fielded them as generic Command Cruisers, with a little extra bite.

The later upgrades to the basic Firehawk designs were either quick jury rigged replacements for destroyed DNs ie Regal, Thunder, and Killer, or speciallty ships like the Imperial Standard.

In F&E, the Command Rating of the Superhawk is 9, a nice number btw for its bpv.  Also the fighter inherant in the Command Ship, does not count against the Command Rating limits.

For the non F & E crowd, the Command Rating determines how many ships a designated Flagship, could effectivley participate in a combat round.  The value (9) determines how many ships can fight at once.  The Flagship MUST be one of the three ships with the highest combat rating. Regular Cruisers had only 8 for comparison.  War Cruisers 7 and so on...
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Lepton1 on August 05, 2003, 08:50:09 pm
Quote:

Quote:

 can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen




Really?  See, I always liked the FASA L-9, and I like my TMP-texture of it for the F5 (see the first page of this thread).  Maybe just me?  




Hey, is that you playing IL2 in your sig??  How does that system work for you with IL2??
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 04:21:18 am
Quote:

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

This is by no means a complaint or any disatisfaction with the fabulous work FS has done for all of us,  just an observation on the 'historical' source material.  





I'm not going to put PFs because a certain ship has fighters, sorry. I will however look for E modules for it, and see what can be done. The fighters that were in the rear hull have been changed to shuttles.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 06:08:26 am
The following screenshot (you know it well) is of the Taldren stock PFF (LR: Light Raider).
 


I did the following this morning, trying to produce a passable PDBR (DBR: Double Light Raider). What do you think?
 
 


This is part of my first attempts at using 3ds (trial version).
-- Luc


PS. My GF thinks it's 2 ships humping each other. I think she has a dirty mind.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 06:56:35 am
I think I've made my choices for the KDNs. Here they are.

1- Appearing as the KDN and KC6 models: (separated in case someone wants to use a different model for a KC6)
This will server for KC6, KC9, KC8 and refits.
 

2- For the KC5, where the SSD clearly shows a reduction in hull boxes and other systems in both rear and front
 

3- For the bastard ship that doesn't fit anywhere till I saw this misproportioned monster, the KB8:
(FYI, the SFB K-B8 is a B10 boom on a K-C8 rear hull. It was designed in case of economic problems. This is also why it has no ADDs in SFB, since the B10 boom and the C8 rear hull didn't house the ADDs: their other halves did.)
 


So far, the current KBB will be used for the B10, and the op+3.0 model ( KSBB ) will be used for the B11.


Comments?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: RazalYllib on August 06, 2003, 07:08:20 am
Understand FS, no problem.

Putting E modules on it defeats the purpose of my suggestion.

Go ahead and keep it as is.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 07:24:06 am
I also want to show you work in progress. I guess I have no talent at texturing, but I did at least come up with a good looking design. I have shared it with EmeraldEdge (who made the KTUG, the LTUG, the LLTT and the HLTT). Again, this is work in progress.
Say hello to my proposed htug:

 
 
   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Fahrenheit on August 06, 2003, 10:18:28 am

I thought the DBR had two hulls side-by-side, not top-and-bottom?


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 10:51:23 am
Quote:


I thought the DBR had two hulls side-by-side, not top-and-bottom?


 




Yes, but that didn't look as good. This way, I also preserve UI compatibility, and it looks better.
Also, the SSDs never could show what's above and below properly, so who knows?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Holocat on August 06, 2003, 01:34:54 pm
Uh, I hope this isn't lost in all the model talk, but I've got a CTD to report.

the F-PV+ in the nonmodel OP 3.0 pack is TINY.  If fact, it was so small I couldn't get a good look at it;  I'm not sure if a model was even there.

In mission on SSII the PV+ was:
1. unseen as any kind of model (not a black model, I mean NO model)
2. crashed after a few moment's time.

To confirm, did a single player skirmish with my ship as the PV+:
1.  I was not able to see the starfield, the enemy, or for that matter anything other than the buttons controling my ship.  Could target the klingons and give all normal orders though.
2.  As soon as I attempted to launch fighters, the game crashes to desktop.

I'm not sure precisely what's wrong, but it dosen't look like the PV+ is pointing to a model.  Please check.

yummy bugs,

Holocat.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Lepton1 on August 06, 2003, 01:46:22 pm
Could someone confirm for me that there are some intentionally hinky ships in the hydran ship list that have heavies with I guess it is RA arcs  or is this an error of some sort??  I was flying something like an HDDV or something like that and it had two rear firing hellbores which I thought was a bit silly.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Strafer on August 06, 2003, 01:54:23 pm
Those would be the Heavy War Destroyers, and yes they do have a pair of RA mounts for any weapons that fit.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 01:57:23 pm
Quote:

Uh, I hope this isn't lost in all the model talk, but I've got a CTD to report.

the F-PV+ in the nonmodel OP 3.0 pack is TINY.  If fact, it was so small I couldn't get a good look at it;  I'm not sure if a model was even there.

In mission on SSII the PV+ was:
1. unseen as any kind of model (not a black model, I mean NO model)
2. crashed after a few moment's time.

To confirm, did a single player skirmish with my ship as the PV+:
1.  I was not able to see the starfield, the enemy, or for that matter anything other than the buttons controling my ship.  Could target the klingons and give all normal orders though.
2.  As soon as I attempted to launch fighters, the game crashes to desktop.

I'm not sure precisely what's wrong, but it dosen't look like the PV+ is pointing to a model.  Please check.

yummy bugs,

Holocat.  





I know. I updated the packages after that bug was found. When did you download yours? ..
.. anyways, the manual "at your end" fix was posted somewhere in 1 of the OP+ threads.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 01:59:36 pm
Quote:

Could someone confirm for me that there are some intentionally hinky ships in the hydran ship list that have heavies with I guess it is RA arcs  or is this an error of some sort??  I was flying something like an HDDV or something like that and it had two rear firing hellbores which I thought was a bit silly.  




Yep. I didn't make those up either.
Fed: HDW
Klingon: HF5
Romulan: SBH
Gorn: HBD
ISC: HDD
Lyran: HDD
Hydran: HDW, LNH
Mirak: HDW
Orion: HDW

Look for them.. and look at the nice rear weapons.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Holocat on August 06, 2003, 02:08:39 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Uh, I hope this isn't lost in all the model talk, but I've got a CTD to report.

the F-PV+ in the nonmodel OP 3.0 pack is TINY.  If fact, it was so small I couldn't get a good look at it;  I'm not sure if a model was even there.

In mission on SSII the PV+ was:
1. unseen as any kind of model (not a black model, I mean NO model)
2. crashed after a few moment's time.

To confirm, did a single player skirmish with my ship as the PV+:
1.  I was not able to see the starfield, the enemy, or for that matter anything other than the buttons controling my ship.  Could target the klingons and give all normal orders though.
2.  As soon as I attempted to launch fighters, the game crashes to desktop.

I'm not sure precisely what's wrong, but it dosen't look like the PV+ is pointing to a model.  Please check.

yummy bugs,

Holocat.  





I know. I updated the packages after that bug was found. When did you download yours? ..
.. anyways, the manual "at your end" fix was posted somewhere in 1 of the OP+ threads.  




Odd.  If your OP+ 3.0 isn't the one SSII is using, why am I able to log on?  Model pointers in the shiplist are checked for identity, or so I thought was implied some time ago...

in any event, will redownload your OP+ pack now,

Holocat.

EDIT: pointer exists, model dosen't.  Strafer told me.  Dangit.  

EDIT:  Updated, no further problems.  Sorry for ringing the alarm.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 02:50:03 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Uh, I hope this isn't lost in all the model talk, but I've got a CTD to report.

the F-PV+ in the nonmodel OP 3.0 pack is TINY.  If fact, it was so small I couldn't get a good look at it;  I'm not sure if a model was even there.

In mission on SSII the PV+ was:
1. unseen as any kind of model (not a black model, I mean NO model)
2. crashed after a few moment's time.

To confirm, did a single player skirmish with my ship as the PV+:
1.  I was not able to see the starfield, the enemy, or for that matter anything other than the buttons controling my ship.  Could target the klingons and give all normal orders though.
2.  As soon as I attempted to launch fighters, the game crashes to desktop.

I'm not sure precisely what's wrong, but it dosen't look like the PV+ is pointing to a model.  Please check.

yummy bugs,

Holocat.  





I know. I updated the packages after that bug was found. When did you download yours? ..
.. anyways, the manual "at your end" fix was posted somewhere in 1 of the OP+ threads.  




Odd.  If your OP+ 3.0 isn't the one SSII is using, why am I able to log on?  Model pointers in the shiplist are checked for identity, or so I thought was implied some time ago...

in any event, will redownload your OP+ pack now,

Holocat.

EDIT: pointer exists, model dosen't.  Strafer told me.  Dangit.  

EDIT:  Updated, no further problems.  Sorry for ringing the alarm.  




Exactly. The "5 important files" that are checked/CRCed didn't need to be changed. I updated the installers with a copy of the FPOL+ model for the FPV. No biggie, right?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 06, 2003, 06:39:48 pm
How about a topical post?

Here's a real correction: H-MKI (Mohawk-I New Command Cruiser) should have 4xPh1, but instead has 4xPh2. If I were a Hydran, I'd be unhappy seeing Ph2 and no Ph1 on an NCC, especially for the BPV. Any hope of a fix before SS2?

Not an error, but odd: the H-CVE is 56 BPV, which jives with the SFB 48 plus 8 for 4 fighters. However, I thought you had said something about using the economic BPV in some cases (for the CVE, it's 68 plus 8 would be 76). In a stock Met_10Patrol (not sure of difficulty factor on matching in .gf), I got put up against a fearsome K-E3DR (2xDroC, 1xADD12, 4xPh3) and then a K-G2CR ... oops ... found another one ... G2CR has Ph3 when it should have an ADD12 post-Y175 and never had Ph3. Anyway, both were cake walks, not unsurprisingly, when I had 4xHornet.III and the CVE's PhGs and lone Ph2. Also waxed a PR with a PlasF in the same mission for good measure. No damage taken in either engagement, no shields lost, no fighters lost. Heck, the Klingon AI fired drones once total in the 2 missions.

Anyway, I wonder if the 68 base BPV would be better for that ship, though certainly Klingon frigates are not going to give anyone a decent fight.

So:

H-MKI should have 4xPh1
H-CVE BPV in question
K-G2CR (and other G2Cs?) should have ADD
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 07:23:06 pm
Thanks Nomad,

In my defense:
H-MKI: I didn't input the R10 and J2 ships. You and Strafer did.   (although thanks guys.)
The H-CVE is a Taldren ship, so it fell into the "if you encounter a problem you want fixed, just let me know" category.
The G2CR is like the CVE. When I increased the #reloads on the G2C, I didn't really care to check it.


Those will be fixed soon enough, but no I won't be fixing it just for SS2. SS2 will do fine without it.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 06, 2003, 07:41:17 pm
No complaints -- it's just that it would be nice if someone with loads of time on their hands could go through the entire list and verify all the little things. Unfortunately, who has the time? So it goes.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 06, 2003, 09:04:32 pm
Quote:

No complaints -- it's just that it would be nice if someone with loads of time on their hands could go through the entire list and verify all the little things. Unfortunately, who has the time? So it goes.  




Time? Yes.
Interest? Hell no.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: dderidex on August 06, 2003, 11:25:24 pm
Minor niggle:

For the Fed hulls with a DD ship schematic (DD, DW, CL, etc.) - you have them using rear hardpoints 14 and 15 all the time.  There are three rear hardpoints - 14 is center, 15 left, and 16 right.  Since you are only using 14 and 15 in the data, it puts the right phaser (typicall) in the center of the hull and the left side phaser on the left where it should be.  Looks kinda silly.  I'd put the left phaser on the left spot (15) and the right phaser on the right spot (16) and leave 14 empty.  At least, that way, the ship schematic in-game would look symetrical.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 03:17:25 am
Quote:

Minor niggle:

For the Fed hulls with a DD ship schematic (DD, DW, CL, etc.) - you have them using rear hardpoints 14 and 15 all the time.  There are three rear hardpoints - 14 is center, 15 left, and 16 right.  Since you are only using 14 and 15 in the data, it puts the right phaser (typicall) in the center of the hull and the left side phaser on the left where it should be.  Looks kinda silly.  I'd put the left phaser on the left spot (15) and the right phaser on the right spot (16) and leave 14 empty.  At least, that way, the ship schematic in-game would look symetrical.  




I'd have to look at it.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 06:02:43 am
Wanted:

1- KDD texture to make it look Romulan (K-F5 -> R-K5R). I already have a good looking KFF for the part.
2- a Romulan texture for the KDN I picked. The one KF has in his screenshot looks nice for the job too. :P~
3- a heavier-looking sparrowhawk model, for the rom HDW .. the SBH.


I might find #3 at my end, but #1 and 2 might be harder to find.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 07, 2003, 08:05:27 am
Quote:

I also want to show you work in progress. I guess I have no talent at texturing, but I did at least come up with a good looking design. I have shared it with EmeraldEdge (who made the KTUG, the LTUG, the LLTT and the HLTT). Again, this is work in progress.
Say hello to my proposed htug:

 
 
   




Sweet! Can I have this NOW??? Does this mean Emerald Edge's tug can be bumped to the Monitor slot? LOL Great job Firesoul.

Hey D'deridex, please send me the Romulan T-10 you modified.

Qapla!

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 08:30:58 am
Obviously, the colors (above) on the pod is wrong. I've applied a generic texture to it for now.

 

You can download it from here:
 http://klingon.stasis.ca/models/hydran/fs_htug.zip

What the heck.. share and share alike.

-- Luc

PS. Should I post this to the Models' forum?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 09:16:04 am
Quote:

Wanted:

1- KDD texture to make it look Romulan (K-F5 -> R-K5R). I already have a good looking KFF for the part.
2- a Romulan texture for the KDN I picked. The one KF has in his screenshot looks nice for the job too. :P~
3- a heavier-looking sparrowhawk model, for the rom HDW .. the SBH.

I might find #3 at my end, but #1 and 2 might be harder to find.  




Never mind. I have everything in hand. I have downloaded the trial version (60 days) of PaintShop Pro and figured out its color manipulations. Why retexture, when you can modify what you already have?

For example, I've taken the KDN that was sent to me, and made a RKDN. Compare:
Before:
 

After:
 


I will be doing the same to the other ships.  
-- Luc
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 10:08:21 am
KDD -> RK5R
   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 07, 2003, 10:17:58 am
Thank you Firesoul. Yes you should post these on the model forum too.

Qapla!

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 10:27:08 am
Even the one you sent me, that I modified? Is that okay?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 07, 2003, 11:07:37 am
Quote:

Even the one you sent me, that I modified? Is that okay?  




ABSOLUTELY! You did a great job Romulanizing it. Please post a link soon. Anything I've retextured you are welcome to.

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 11:13:38 am
Done. Go check the Models forum.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 07, 2003, 11:28:30 am
Quote:

Done. Go check the Models forum.  




I have a RKDD you should add, not that yours is bad mind you. I took TheDuctTapeWonder's version at his site:

http://www.tgp-bs.ca.tc/



 [NOTE: this is TDTW's pic not mine]

I added KFT GUN textures to make the wing guns standout better. I can send it to you if you want. Also, the SHATTERED UNIVERSE game takes the same model and makes the "wing guns" mini-warp engines.

Qapla!

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 12:09:02 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Done. Go check the Models forum.  




I have a RKDD you should add, not that yours is bad mind you. I took TheDuctTapeWonder's version at his site:

http://www.tgp-bs.ca.tc/



 [NOTE: this is TDTW's pic not mine]

I added KFT GUN textures to make the wing guns standout better. I can send it to you if you want. Also, the SHATTERED UNIVERSE game takes the same model and makes the "wing guns" mini-warp engines.

Qapla!

KF  




Thank you. I downloaded it. To me, that means I didn't lose any time even if a ship I wanted was found.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 07, 2003, 02:16:27 pm
Another ship spec error/question:

Is the Z-CMX given 2xPh1 by design, or is it an oversight, perhaps an automated arc replacement fix that accidentally replaced PhXes with Ph1s?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 07, 2003, 04:02:57 pm
hm. most probably a copy-paste mistake related to the new arcs. Thanks.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 07:37:04 am
I just got Atra-Hasis' permission to modify and use a ship of his.
Y'see, I'm replacing the D5 variants curently in use in OP+ 3.0 with these better models. Unfortunately, there was nothing to replace the D5H, so I made one using his D5 and a pod create by EmeraldEdge:

 
Download:  http://klingon.stasis.ca/models/klingon/fs_kltt.zip

The D5W and KDR can be found on SFU. Swap the textures on both and you get a DWR and a plain D5. Add the above model, and you have the whole set. You may have to rename some files/directories to match my current settings. It should be safe to replace the 3.0 models with these as long as you don't touch the 5 textfiles.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Gamester on August 08, 2003, 09:25:29 am
Firesoul - I just wanted to bring to your attention (just in case you were unwae of it) that the new Gorn models (at least when I downloaded them) came with some alternate engine color files (red & purple as opposed to green). IMHO the green ones are the best looking, but when I was manually adding these ships, I used the different engine colored ships for varients. It triples your available gorn models! If you are interessted and don't have the color change files for the gorn stuff, let me know and I will get them to you.

Gamester
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 09:44:45 am
Thank you. .. but I think I have almost enough gorns. The only probs I can think I may encounter are the weird DND and the tugs.

The HDD and CM looks like a good canditate for Tug modification.. if Thu11s lets me.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 08, 2003, 10:24:15 am
FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 10:37:28 am
Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




He's talking about a tactic where a cancelled scatterpack always goes back to the first dronerack in the list. That's why he wants the C racks there.
Personally I find that tactic abusive because he can be QUICKLY repeated, instead of a transfer of  (check the rules for the value of N) drones per turn transfered from 1 rack to the other, while that rack is supposed to be offline.

However, I understand it since Miraks are the underdogs. I will consider his request.

BTW, he should not expect this to be done for SS2 unless you guys want to wait till I release 3.1
.. and that won't be for a while.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 08, 2003, 12:13:17 pm
What about some other things, like the Hydran new command cruiser phasers? Were you planning to put out anything with some additional models that could squeeze in some of the corrections? If not, we'll have to take that into consideration.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 12:18:58 pm
If I release any form of correction to any of the textfiles, then it's a release thus not compatible to OP+ 3.0,. It's a new release. There is no transparent fix for these requests.

.. besides, a lot of people would be annoyed at me if I was to release now. It hasn't been 2 full weeks, and that was only about 2 weeks between v2.2 and v3.0. I recommend that you work with the current version as-is, with the understanding that there are a few simple errors.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 08, 2003, 12:40:09 pm
That's understandable -- I just wanted to know if you had any plans so I could offer alternatives to Jeff and the crew in case they felt a variation of OP+ might be worthwhile. Now we know we shouldn't wait for a new release.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 02:50:12 pm
What I've been doing today:  I-TUG

My brain hurts, now.. Need rest.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on August 08, 2003, 07:50:40 pm
I came across something odd in the stock OP specs. Taldren's Orion XDD's have a move cost of 1. All the other races' XDD's have a move cost of 0.66. One might say this is because of Engine Doubling; but why then don't the O-XFF or O-XCA have higher move costs than their counterparts?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 09:06:00 pm
That *is* odd. How many warps?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on August 08, 2003, 09:21:12 pm
Orion XDD has 32 warp and 2 impulse. I'd say a move cost of 1 is too high. If you don't double engines, you really can't compete.

Fed XDD has 38 warp, 2 impulse, and 2 apr. Move cost is 0.66.

BPV's are about the same.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 08, 2003, 10:02:19 pm
I'd say you're right.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on August 09, 2003, 12:36:27 am
Well, I've changed the O-XDD to have a move cost of 0.67 in the SW 8.8-OP specs. It makes no sense rhat an X-ship would have the same energy curve as an ancient F-CA. Lowering it to 0.67 gives it respectable power, though it's not overwhelming. Some non-X-ships have 34 or more power with a 2/3rds movement cost (H-BAR, L-CWLP, H-TAR, H-APA).

Do you think you might change the OP+ specs in a similar fashion?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 01:02:15 am
Yes. That's clearly a mistake.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 09, 2003, 07:18:15 am
Interested in a Heavy Carrier refit? This is the USS Truman retexture of the stock FCV by Atticbat:



This ship is what brought me BACK to TMP.

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 12:48:50 pm
Yes. Can you send it to me?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 12:50:20 pm
Following is 2 day's worth of 3ds work. I am sorry if the texture's not perfect. I have not mastered any of this. Next on todo list: a I-LTT.


 ISC Fleet Tug, 0 pods
 


 ISC Fleet Tug, 2 cargo pods
 


 ISC Battle Tug
 


Enjoy.
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on August 09, 2003, 03:33:24 pm
FS can you check on the I-BBVZ model (and related ships too). I was playing GSA last night and got a CTD both times I tried to use this ship in a CoopAce misssion. I don't know who had what exactly, but I do know it was a mixture of modeled and non-modeled lists. I have the non-models list. Each time I would get a really long load up, then the starfield, then the UI and just as it seemed it would start up, it CTD. No model ever appeared, not even for a moment. I have used the ship in single player tests and it shows so I think there might be a pointer conflict if you did indeed change the model for this ship in your larger version.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 03:49:55 pm
Can you check and see if you have a "OPPLUS/models/ibb/ibb.mod" at your end? The no_models installer is supposed to copy the IDN model from assets/models/idn and rename the .mod files.

At my end, at first glance, everything was all right. The IBB replacement model worked last time I tested it. I will have to try the 3.0 no_models installer and check it out.

But right now I have to feed the baby.
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on August 09, 2003, 04:00:41 pm
I have ibb.mod and ibb_brk.mod.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 09, 2003, 04:20:22 pm
have you tried the BBVZ in a skirmish?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on August 09, 2003, 04:33:09 pm
If you mean single player, yes. Also in the SP campaign. I haven't tried any other multi scripts besides CoopAce. I'd be happy to get on and test it. I had sort of the same problem with a G-HWD model, but I think that was another problem with Frey's list that he got worked out.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 01:44:07 am
If it worked in the skirmish...
.. then there's nothing wrong with the BBVZ.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 04:25:22 pm
ISC LTT completed.

 ISC Light Tactical Transport (LTT)
 


 ISC Light Cargo Transport (LTTC1)
 


 ISC Light Battle Tug (LBT)
 
 
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 05:59:17 pm
Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?  




Back to this:

I did some research, and it seems that there are some restrictions to which modules can be used. However, these following are legal in SFB, and possible under SFC. Skipped are scout (useless), repair (useless) and cargo (bleh).  Note that no plasmas would be added/removed.

1- R-DMH (DemonHawk) (Conjectural, so is "R" and new variants will be "R")
Modules: 2x matching sparrowhawk, 1x skyhawk
- G,A (commando, combat)  (SPECIAL)
- G,G (commando, commando)  (SPECIAL)
- G,C (commando, PFTender)  (SPECIAL)
- E,A (PFT, combat)
(E,C is legal, but can't be done in SFC)
- E,G (PFT, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,A (combat, combat) (**Current config**)
- K,G (combat, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,C (combat, PFT)

2- R-MGH (MegaHawk) (Conjectural. Will be "R")
Modules: 2 sets of matching sparrowhawk modules.
- E,K / K,E  (PFT, Combat)
- E,G / G,E (PFT, Commando)
- E,M / M,E (PFT, PlasmaD)  
- E,K / K,E (PFT, combat)
- G,G (Commando, Commando)
- G,K / K,G (Commando, Combat)
- G,M / M,G (Commando, PlaD)
- M,M (PLaD, PLaD)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)

3- R-OMH (OmniHawk, Light DreadNaught) (Conjectural, Will be "R")
Same as MGH's.



That's a lot of DNs.
-- Luc



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 06:12:37 pm
Quote:

The R-KWR is using the Snipe frigate model, the KR UI, is in the Light Cruiser section and it is classified as a New Heavy Cruiser. That's one mixed up ship. This is in the DL without models.  




Fixed the KWR. I also passed through the shiplist, and made sure that the NCAs are all under the CA shiplists. The KCA UI is necessary for the 5th plasma to fit right.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 10, 2003, 08:00:25 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

This is by no means a complaint or any disatisfaction with the fabulous work FS has done for all of us,  just an observation on the 'historical' source material.  





I'm not going to put PFs because a certain ship has fighters, sorry. I will however look for E modules for it, and see what can be done. The fighters that were in the rear hull have been changed to shuttles.  





I just made a Casual PFT variant of it, with 2 PFs. Start year "17" aka 2280.
Designation: R-SUKF
BPV: 207
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 09:40:25 am
Quote:

How about a topical post?

Here's a real correction: H-MKI (Mohawk-I New Command Cruiser) should have 4xPh1, but instead has 4xPh2. If I were a Hydran, I'd be unhappy seeing Ph2 and no Ph1 on an NCC, especially for the BPV. Any hope of a fix before SS2?

Not an error, but odd: the H-CVE is 56 BPV, which jives with the SFB 48 plus 8 for 4 fighters. However, I thought you had said something about using the economic BPV in some cases (for the CVE, it's 68 plus 8 would be 76). In a stock Met_10Patrol (not sure of difficulty factor on matching in .gf), I got put up against a fearsome K-E3DR (2xDroC, 1xADD12, 4xPh3) and then a K-G2CR ... oops ... found another one ... G2CR has Ph3 when it should have an ADD12 post-Y175 and never had Ph3. Anyway, both were cake walks, not unsurprisingly, when I had 4xHornet.III and the CVE's PhGs and lone Ph2. Also waxed a PR with a PlasF in the same mission for good measure. No damage taken in either engagement, no shields lost, no fighters lost. Heck, the Klingon AI fired drones once total in the 2 missions.

Anyway, I wonder if the 68 base BPV would be better for that ship, though certainly Klingon frigates are not going to give anyone a decent fight.

So:

H-MKI should have 4xPh1
H-CVE BPV in question
K-G2CR (and other G2Cs?) should have ADD  




H-MKI, H-IRC -- Fixed.
H-CVE: Agreed. Fixed.
K-G2, G2R -> Fixed. ph3->ADD
K-G2C and variants: check it out, it's wrong. Wrong shields, Aft Hull, number of weapons, # shuttles max..  .. anyways, it's fixed too.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 09:58:32 am
Quote:

Minor niggle:

For the Fed hulls with a DD ship schematic (DD, DW, CL, etc.) - you have them using rear hardpoints 14 and 15 all the time.  There are three rear hardpoints - 14 is center, 15 left, and 16 right.  Since you are only using 14 and 15 in the data, it puts the right phaser (typicall) in the center of the hull and the left side phaser on the left where it should be.  Looks kinda silly.  I'd put the left phaser on the left spot (15) and the right phaser on the right spot (16) and leave 14 empty.  At least, that way, the ship schematic in-game would look symetrical.  




I see it. I fixed anything with a FDD UI and that weird placement.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 10:57:01 am
Quote:

Another ship spec error/question:

Is the Z-CMX given 2xPh1 by design, or is it an oversight, perhaps an automated arc replacement fix that accidentally replaced PhXes with Ph1s?  




Confirmed. I improved my weapons_checker perl script to look for any non-X phasers on X ships. It's the only one with that problem in the races. ... but it looks like I have a bunch of LRs to review.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 11:34:47 am
Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




I need more info .. what's this about "on top"?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 11:38:59 am
Quote:

Orion XDD has 32 warp and 2 impulse. I'd say a move cost of 1 is too high. If you don't double engines, you really can't compete.
Fed XDD has 38 warp, 2 impulse, and 2 apr. Move cost is 0.66.
BPV's are about the same.  




Fixed.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 11:43:31 am
Quote:

Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?  




Back to this:

I did some research, and it seems that there are some restrictions to which modules can be used. However, these following are legal in SFB, and possible under SFC. Skipped are scout (useless), repair (useless) and cargo (bleh).  Note that no plasmas would be added/removed.

1- R-DMH (DemonHawk) (Conjectural, so is "R" and new variants will be "R")
Modules: 2x matching sparrowhawk, 1x skyhawk
- G,A (commando, combat)  (SPECIAL)
- G,G (commando, commando)  (SPECIAL)
- G,C (commando, PFTender)  (SPECIAL)
- E,A (PFT, combat)
(E,C is legal, but can't be done in SFC)
- E,G (PFT, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,A (combat, combat) (**Current config**)
- K,G (combat, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,C (combat, PFT)

2- R-MGH (MegaHawk) (Conjectural. Will be "R")
Modules: 2 sets of matching sparrowhawk modules.
- E,K / K,E  (PFT, Combat)
- E,G / G,E (PFT, Commando)
- E,M / M,E (PFT, PlasmaD)  
- G,G (Commando, Commando)
- G,K / K,G (Commando, Combat)
- G,M / M,G (Commando, PlaD)
- M,M (PLaD, PLaD)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)

3- R-OMH (OmniHawk, Light DreadNaught) (Conjectural, Will be "R")
Same as MGH's.

That's a lot of DNs.
-- Luc
 





Note.
For the OMH and the MGH, 1 of the sets of modules is hardwelded as a K module. That settles down the variants by quite a bit.
- E,K   (PFT, Combat)
- G,K  (Commando, Combat)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 11, 2003, 11:46:02 am
Quote:



Note.
For the OMH and the MGH, 1 of the sets of modules is hardwelded as a K module. That settles down the variants by quite a bit.
- E,K   (PFT, Combat)
- G,K  (Commando, Combat)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)
 




Yeah, but they said that about the heavy hawks as well.  And we see how that has changed.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 11:51:05 am
Quote:

Quote:



Note.
For the OMH and the MGH, 1 of the sets of modules is hardwelded as a K module. That settles down the variants by quite a bit.
- E,K   (PFT, Combat)
- G,K  (Commando, Combat)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)
 




Yeah, but they said that about the heavy hawks as well.  And we see how that has changed.  




I think the heavy hawk variants had the modules hardwelded too.. but into that variant's form.
Anyways. That means a few DNs can appear in the shiplist for Rommies.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 11, 2003, 12:19:02 pm
Quote:

Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




I need more info .. what's this about "on top"?  




I wish I knew. I only copied and pasted what Fluf wrote -- it's not a problem I'm familiar with. Perhaps you could PM or email Fluf for a better picture of the problem?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 11, 2003, 12:24:19 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




I need more info .. what's this about "on top"?  




I wish I knew. I only copied and pasted what Fluf wrote -- it's not a problem I'm familiar with. Perhaps you could PM or email Fluf for a better picture of the problem?  




From just looking at the list through shipedit I can glean this from the above.  If you go to the above 2 ships and look at the weapons page the B racks a listed first before the C racks.  On most other Mirak ships the C racks are listed first.  that must make the difference on how the 'reload' effect takes place when you cancel a scatterpack.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 12:44:18 pm
Ok. Let's see what I can do for these:

    Z-FFR -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-NCD -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-NCD -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BC+ -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-CVS+ -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-DN -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-DN+ -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-DNH -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-CVAR -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-CVAR -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BB -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BBV -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BBV -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-BCX -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-CCX -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XFG -- M rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XFG -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XDD -- M rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XDG -- M rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XSC -- M rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XCB -- C rack found after other drone rack
    Z-XCB -- C rack found after other drone rack
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 08:03:14 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Firesoul, if there are any models in  here  that you like, I can get you the model. Permissions are another matter...

On the MegaHawk, I don't have R7 (Metro Detroit, and I can't find a shop that carries SFB anymore ) so i don't know what material ADB gave to work with, but what I do know is that it's a DN hull that takes 4 SparrowHawk modules. I envisioned 3 basic variants; MHK-KK (LL would be better but would Command put that much Mojo in one hull?), MHK-EK (a PFT/combat platform), & MHK-MK (for use vs Hydrans & Mirak). JK, EM, EJ, KF,JM, FF, JJ .... variants might be interesting, but without guidelines from ADB to work from, I don't see how we could accurately calculate a BPV for a ship this far from the base version, and while they might make good fleet elements, would they be both practical for use in SFC and something that the Empire would really produce?  




Back to this:

I did some research, and it seems that there are some restrictions to which modules can be used. However, these following are legal in SFB, and possible under SFC. Skipped are scout (useless), repair (useless) and cargo (bleh).  Note that no plasmas would be added/removed.

1- R-DMH (DemonHawk) (Conjectural, so is "R" and new variants will be "R")
Modules: 2x matching sparrowhawk, 1x skyhawk
- G,A (commando, combat)  (SPECIAL)
- G,G (commando, commando)  (SPECIAL)
- G,C (commando, PFTender)  (SPECIAL)
- E,A (PFT, combat)
(E,C is legal, but can't be done in SFC)
- E,G (PFT, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,A (combat, combat) (**Current config**)
- K,G (combat, commando) (SPECIAL)
- K,C (combat, PFT)

2- R-MGH (MegaHawk) (Conjectural. Will be "R")
Modules: 2 sets of matching sparrowhawk modules.
- E,K / K,E  (PFT, Combat)
- E,G / G,E (PFT, Commando)
- E,M / M,E (PFT, PlasmaD)  
- G,G (Commando, Commando)
- G,K / K,G (Commando, Combat)
- G,M / M,G (Commando, PlaD)
- M,M (PLaD, PLaD)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)

3- R-OMH (OmniHawk, Light DreadNaught) (Conjectural, Will be "R")
Same as MGH's.

That's a lot of DNs.
-- Luc
 





Note.
For the OMH and the MGH, 1 of the sets of modules is hardwelded as a K module. That settles down the variants by quite a bit.
- E,K   (PFT, Combat)
- G,K  (Commando, Combat)
- M,K (PLaD, Combat)
- K,K (Combat)
 




OOof. Took a while, but completed this. All are "R".
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 08:04:05 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

FS, I think Fluf found some issues with drone placement on X-ships:

Quote:

Both the CCX and the BCX have the B and C racks in the wrong place. The C rack needs to be on the top as all the other ships are done. Without this, we cannot reload our C rack in mission, by making and canceling a SP and it becomes useless.




I didn't quite understand the problem, but I wanted to make sure it got pointed out to you before your next release.  




I need more info .. what's this about "on top"?  




I wish I knew. I only copied and pasted what Fluf wrote -- it's not a problem I'm familiar with. Perhaps you could PM or email Fluf for a better picture of the problem?  




From just looking at the list through shipedit I can glean this from the above.  If you go to the above 2 ships and look at the weapons page the B racks a listed first before the C racks.  On most other Mirak ships the C racks are listed first.  that must make the difference on how the 'reload' effect takes place when you cancel a scatterpack.  




Done.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 11, 2003, 08:05:02 pm
Note to self:

I've completed the correction requests up to this post.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 12, 2003, 03:20:40 pm
Quote:


H-MKI, H-IRC -- Fixed.
H-CVE: Agreed. Fixed.
K-G2, G2R -> Fixed. ph3->ADD
K-G2C and variants: check it out, it's wrong. Wrong shields, Aft Hull, number of weapons, # shuttles max..  .. anyways, it's fixed too.  




Was just checking through Jeff's shiplist and wanted to verify G2s. Did you see the following?

K-G2 should not have Ph3, and should have 1xADD6, shield 4 should be 9 boxes
K-G2R should be 50 BPV, should not have Ph3, and should have 1xADD12, shield 4 should be 9 boxes

In other words, the BPV, ADD type, and rear shield value all check out now?

This also affects the WG2 and WG2+, which should not have Ph3s.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 12, 2003, 05:02:05 pm
I may have forgotten the WG2s. I will work on those later. Thanks.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 12, 2003, 07:26:17 pm
Please note that the GCM's break model causes a CTD when a GCM variant explodes. I have redone the break model at my end with success. I guess it's only by playing that these things will be discovered.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Sten on August 13, 2003, 12:33:49 pm
Firesoul

I know you don't want to mess with the Taldren Ships.

But can you look at the Lyran PFE one time and remove 1 distruptor from the PFE so it only has 3.

I have been watching the PFE after it fires its first volley and the PFE has a problem even charging the 4th disruptor let alone ever getting the ESG charged.

After the first volley power is scarce.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 13, 2003, 12:44:13 pm
Quote:

Firesoul

I know you don't want to mess with the Taldren Ships.

But can you look at the Lyran PFE one time and remove 1 distruptor from the PFE so it only has 3.

I have been watching the PFE after it fires its first volley and the PFE has a problem even charging the 4th disruptor let alone ever getting the ESG charged.

After the first volley power is scarce.  




Have you tested this?
I've noticed the PFEs dropping to speed 8.3 or so after a volley (past experience). A removal of 1 Dizzy would probably speed it up by .. 12.. making it a speed 20 reloading PF. (not bad)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Sten on August 13, 2003, 02:04:04 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Firesoul

I know you don't want to mess with the Taldren Ships.

But can you look at the Lyran PFE one time and remove 1 distruptor from the PFE so it only has 3.

I have been watching the PFE after it fires its first volley and the PFE has a problem even charging the 4th disruptor let alone ever getting the ESG charged.

After the first volley power is scarce.  




Have you tested this?
I've noticed the PFEs dropping to speed 8.3 or so after a volley (past experience). A removal of 1 Dizzy would probably speed it up by .. 12.. making it a speed 20 reloading PF. (not bad)




Well yea. Actually I would like to see the PFE with only 2 disruptors and add in 1 phaser-3 LS and another RS. But with all the flames lately I looked at a more modest proposal.

The 4th Disruptor has a hard time getting charged after the first volley. The ESG forget about it.

So truth be told Dizzy's PFL from SG3 is what inspired me.

 Now to avoid any additonal hot dicussions about added internals and what not.  I came to two options to improve the power curve without adding aditional power to the PFE.

Option 1) Remove 1 disruptor frees up 2 points of power. The PFs AI seems to function better with the extra power. The AI will put power into ECM, and will attempt to charge the ESG.

Option 2) Remove two disruptors add 1 phaser-3 to the LS and add 1 phaser-3 RS. Again this version can defend itself but leads to the I can't kill em easy crowd getting bent out of shape.  This is the version that I feel might cause people to get bent out of shape.

You hit the nail on the head with the PFE. Once its fired its volley the power breakdown looks as follows: 8 points into 4 disruptors, 3 points into phasers, 1.5 point into housekeeping leaves you with 2.5 points for movement.

 Max Speed speed 12-13 while charging this is why the 4th disruptor has a devil of a time charging much less the ESG.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 13, 2003, 04:32:38 pm
I don't mind removing 1 dizzy on the PFEs. I recognize the AI's stupidity.
Know that the BPV of the PFE will be lowered. (how much is 1 dizzy worth?)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rod O'neal on August 13, 2003, 09:39:30 pm
I've always thought that the L-PFE is WAY overgunned. I agree with the 2xdisr, 2xPh3 version. Stock it outguns many frigates and is s-l-o-w. Personally, I like the L-PFL specs, which is much better defensively, and is more inline with the firepower of a vessel this size.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 13, 2003, 10:31:17 pm
Quote:

I've always thought that the L-PFE is WAY overgunned. I agree with the 2xdisr, 2xPh3 version. Stock it outguns many frigates and is s-l-o-w. Personally, I like the L-PFL specs, which is much better defensively, and is more inline with the firepower of a vessel this size.    




Remember that the L-PFE was a Taldren invention. Removing it would probably not help this project (I tend to preserve Taldren-made ships). Adding ph3s to it changes it too much to my taste. I much prefer the simple removal of a single disruptor for power balance.

That .. thing.. doesn't need more ph3s for defense.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Sten on August 14, 2003, 07:49:53 am
FireSoul,

At this time just drop the entire PFE issue. Its not a good time it appears.

Anyhow as I drove into to work. That old beta tester mind kicked in and I thought of a possible work around.

Just need to test my ideal out when I get home tonight.

Since the PFs in OP do not launch semi-hot as they do in EAW. Its time to develope different tactics again.

If you would sir forget about what I posted.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 14, 2003, 08:12:07 am
FYI,

.. check out some of the ships I've made models for:
 http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB11&Number=146540&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1


I don't have permission to the modify part of his 'modify and/or distribute' agreement of his material. the author agreed on distribution as part of my mod some time ago via email, but the modification part only came recently when I discovered my 3ds legs.

..so.. maybe these won't make the next version.. or maybe these will. Dunno yet.
-- Luc

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 14, 2003, 12:20:20 pm
Can you check the name of the R-SNE in the specs? I think it reads Snipe-B Battle Frigate, but should be (?) Snipe-E Escort (I'm guessing, since I don't have my books with me). If this does need to be changed, does the strings.txt etc. need to be updated?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 14, 2003, 01:04:35 pm
Quote:

Can you check the name of the R-SNE in the specs? I think it reads Snipe-B Battle Frigate, but should be (?) Snipe-E Escort (I'm guessing, since I don't have my books with me). If this does need to be changed, does the strings.txt etc. need to be updated?  




Problem's in the shiplist. That means strings.txt will also have to be updated. No biggie.
Will be in next release, as you probably expected.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 14, 2003, 01:07:55 pm
Yep. Just calling them out as I find them.

New one: should H-IRC have 4xPh1 instead of 4xPh2 (a la MKI reported earlier)? Don't have my book here to check, but that's my guess.

Another quibble: should H-D7H follow a refit track (shields upgraded I think)? I seem to remember it should.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 14, 2003, 01:09:57 pm
Quote:

Yep. Just calling them out as I find them.

New one: should H-IRC have 4xPh1 instead of 4xPh2 (a la MKI reported earlier)? Don't have my book here to check, but that's my guess.

Another quibble: should H-D7H follow a refit track (shields upgraded I think)? I seem to remember it should.  




I did the H-IRC at my end a few days ago, and.. as it happens.. a D7H/D7H+ split *10* minutes ago.
Keep at it Doug.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Fahrenheit on August 15, 2003, 10:48:31 am
Quote:

Yep. Just calling them out as I find them.

New one: should H-IRC have 4xPh1 instead of 4xPh2 (a la MKI reported earlier)? Don't have my book here to check, but that's my guess.

Another quibble: should H-D7H follow a refit track (shields upgraded I think)? I seem to remember it should.  




It didn't in SFB, since the Anarchist was a one-off ship.  However, I think it'd be prudent to have an upgrade track so that people can play "what-if" (and perhaps SFB did this, not sure).


"Don't be afraid to take a big step. You can't cross a chasm in two small jumps." -- David Lloyd George
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jdmckinney on August 15, 2003, 10:56:31 am
Actually, even a single ship can have refits. Like I said, there was a shield upgrade. There was also a boom phaser upgrade. The original D7H had Ph2s on the boom and rear/side-rear shields in the teens; the D7H with a refit has Ph1s on the boom and the shields go up to 20 on the aft, I believe. The Taldren stock D7H had Ph1s and shields were too high at 22. The pre-refit version wasn't there at all. Now there will be 2 versions if FS has made the changes I think he did. Anyway, it's a minor point. After that, we essentially get one extra ship nobody will use.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on August 15, 2003, 01:54:39 pm
Quote:

Actually, even a single ship can have refits. Like I said, there was a shield upgrade. There was also a boom phaser upgrade. The original D7H had Ph2s on the boom and rear/side-rear shields in the teens; the D7H with a refit has Ph1s on the boom and the shields go up to 20 on the aft, I believe. The Taldren stock D7H had Ph1s and shields were too high at 22. The pre-refit version wasn't there at all. Now there will be 2 versions if FS has made the changes I think he did. Anyway, it's a minor point. After that, we essentially get one extra ship nobody will use.  





22 shields are correct.  the D7(and D7H) had 30 - 22 - 15 - 13 shields and the refits made the rear 3 equal to the 2 and 6 shields in other words 30 - 22 - 22 - 22
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Max_iCOP on August 16, 2003, 02:14:46 am
Not a correction, but a fair place to put this.

THANK YOU, Firesoul !!!

This is an outstanding piece of work, which has got me hooked on OP yet again.
I really cannot describe how god I think it is.

Can we play it on-line at all?

Again, many thanks
Max_iCOP.

p.s. on re-reading I spotted a Freudian Slip of "god" instead of "good".  Maybe I can describe it afterall .
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 16, 2003, 07:28:26 am
Quote:

Not a correction, but a fair place to put this.

THANK YOU, Firesoul !!!

This is an outstanding piece of work, which has got me hooked on OP yet again.
I really cannot describe how god I think it is.

Can we play it on-line at all?

Again, many thanks
Max_iCOP.

p.s. on re-reading I spotted a Freudian Slip of "god" instead of "good".  Maybe I can describe it afterall .  




You're welcomed.
When you say "can we play it online a tall?", do you mean us playing.. or do you mean "can this be used online?"
.. This can be used online just fine.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: RazalYllib on August 16, 2003, 08:15:36 am
OP ARENA is currenty using the shiplist and it is a lot of fun.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 16, 2003, 11:05:17 am
QUESTIONS:

1- I've noticed that there are only SBXes.. no BTX or BSX. Are these wanted? This questions depends on the next one, for the style wanted.

2- .. The current bases aren't the same as the SFB bases. There are some notable differences. Should I leave them alone, or redo them?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Max_iCOP on August 16, 2003, 02:39:04 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Not a correction, but a fair place to put this.

THANK YOU, Firesoul !!!

This is an outstanding piece of work, which has got me hooked on OP yet again.
I really cannot describe how god I think it is.

Can we play it on-line at all?

Again, many thanks
Max_iCOP.

p.s. on re-reading I spotted a Freudian Slip of "god" instead of "good".  Maybe I can describe it afterall .  




You're welcomed.
When you say "can we play it online a tall?", do you mean us playing.. or do you mean "can this be used online?"
.. This can be used online just fine.  




I meant how do I get a game against another human.  Is there a Dynaverse set up?  Will Game Spy allow match up's?  Or do I have to TCP/IP a fellow player?
Thanks again
Max_iCOP
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 16, 2003, 05:37:54 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Not a correction, but a fair place to put this.

THANK YOU, Firesoul !!!

This is an outstanding piece of work, which has got me hooked on OP yet again.
I really cannot describe how god I think it is.

Can we play it on-line at all?

Again, many thanks
Max_iCOP.

p.s. on re-reading I spotted a Freudian Slip of "god" instead of "good".  Maybe I can describe it afterall .  




You're welcomed.
When you say "can we play it online a tall?", do you mean us playing.. or do you mean "can this be used online?"
.. This can be used online just fine.  




I meant how do I get a game against another human.  Is there a Dynaverse set up?  Will Game Spy allow match up's?  Or do I have to TCP/IP a fellow player?
Thanks again
Max_iCOP  




This shiplist is used on GameSpy for a long time now. There isn't a difference (as far as SFC is concerned) between direct TCP and GameSpy. As for a Dynaverse server, yes there is one set up. See above.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 26, 2003, 12:00:55 pm
Quote:

QUESTIONS:

1- I've noticed that there are only SBXes.. no BTX or BSX. Are these wanted? This questions depends on the next one, for the style wanted.

2- .. The current bases aren't the same as the SFB bases. There are some notable differences. Should I leave them alone, or redo them?  





"YES!" on #1.

"No IDEA" on #2.  Taldren's weaker than SFB?  Haven't seen SFB specs in ages.


I'm not sure any of the bases need to be harder to take down.




BTW...I noticed (since I use the version of OP+ 3.0 that doesn't include the models, since I like my own just fine, thank you!   ) that you replicate the K-F5s from the KDD folder and the HF5s from the KFF folder.  This doesn't seem quite right to me.  Has this already been discussed elsewhere in this thread?






 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 26, 2003, 12:28:10 pm
Quote:

Quote:

QUESTIONS:

1- I've noticed that there are only SBXes.. no BTX or BSX. Are these wanted? This questions depends on the next one, for the style wanted.

2- .. The current bases aren't the same as the SFB bases. There are some notable differences. Should I leave them alone, or redo them?  





"YES!" on #1.

"No IDEA" on #2.  Taldren's weaker than SFB?  Haven't seen SFB specs in ages.


I'm not sure any of the bases need to be harder to take down.




BTW...I noticed (since I use the version of OP+ 3.0 that doesn't include the models, since I like my own just fine, thank you!   ) that you replicate the K-F5s from the KDD folder and the HF5s from the KFF folder.  This doesn't seem quite right to me.  Has this already been discussed elsewhere in this thread?






 





I haven't seen this thread in a while.

.. for the #2 question: SFC bases are a bit stronger than the SFB ones. They would have to be understood, and the technique used reverse-engineered to be able to reproduce the BSX and BTX in the same style.


As for the model, I don't quite recall.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Cmdr. Krotz on August 26, 2003, 12:54:00 pm
FS-

Would you look into changing the K-DWC's 2 FX Phaser-1s to the KFX arc please, so as to be more in line with other Klingon ships? All the other Klingon NCA hulls are doing it  

Thanks,
        Krotz  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 26, 2003, 01:08:07 pm
Quote:

FS-

Would you look into changing the K-DWC's 2 FX Phaser-1s to the KFX arc please, so as to be more in line with other Klingon ships? All the other Klingon NCA hulls are doing it  

Thanks,
Krotz  




The DWC is a pre-R10 ship Taldren invention. Why shouldn't it just be removed?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 26, 2003, 01:32:06 pm
Why not, indeed...  


So..regarding the KFF being replicated to suffice for the HF5s...


You don't recall and don't care or you'll look into it?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 26, 2003, 01:51:03 pm
Quote:

Why not, indeed...  


So..regarding the KFF being replicated to suffice for the HF5s...
You don't recall and don't care or you'll look into it?  




Ah. That. I have found models for the HF5 since 3.0. I don't need to do anything, since it kinda has been fixed already.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Cmdr. Krotz on August 26, 2003, 04:39:27 pm
Quote:

 The DWC is a pre-R10 ship Taldren invention. Why shouldn't it just be removed?  




I'm sure no one would mind its passing, but if it is kept around, it would be nice to maintain it "up to code", so to speak.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 26, 2003, 05:28:09 pm
Quote:

Quote:

 The DWC is a pre-R10 ship Taldren invention. Why shouldn't it just be removed?  




I'm sure no one would mind its passing, but if it is kept around, it would be nice to maintain it "up to code", so to speak.  




It's going to be removed. The NCAL and the DWC were the only 2 leftovers of that class still in the shiplist. All the others have been replaced since they had the same designation as the one that was already in the shiplist. This way, it's fair and good to everyone.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 01:29:23 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Why not, indeed...  


So..regarding the KFF being replicated to suffice for the HF5s...
You don't recall and don't care or you'll look into it?  




Ah. That. I have found models for the HF5 since 3.0. I don't need to do anything, since it kinda has been fixed already.  




Perhaps you have missed my point.


i'm talking about those of us who do not download the "model pack" version and are having the KFF directory replicated for the HF5s when clearly the model being used for the other F5s (KDD) is more appropriate.

I hope this clarifies things sufficiently.  Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 27, 2003, 01:38:39 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Why not, indeed...  


So..regarding the KFF being replicated to suffice for the HF5s...
You don't recall and don't care or you'll look into it?  




Ah. That. I have found models for the HF5 since 3.0. I don't need to do anything, since it kinda has been fixed already.  




Perhaps you have missed my point.


i'm talking about those of us who do not download the "model pack" version and are having the KFF directory replicated for the HF5s when clearly the model being used for the other F5s (KDD) is more appropriate.

I hope this clarifies things sufficiently.  Thanks in advance for your consideration.  




Ah. Ok.
Feel free to change it as you want at your end, I'll chang eit in the current build of next OP+ at my end.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 03:02:28 pm
Thanks.  I've already done so.  It's good to hear the replication issue will be addressed.



In regards to the HF5 models you have found, can you give a little more detail as to what they are...and perhaps where they might be seen?  I'm currently using P81's K'Vort model for the KDD model (pertaining to the F5s, FWs, F6 and the HF5s).  I wouldn't mind making a distinction between F5s/FWs/F6 and the HF5s.  I just haven't come across a suitable model.  I find very few of the Klingon models out there to be to my liking...heheh.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 27, 2003, 03:22:28 pm
NOTE: I already made my choices, and I don't think I will be changing my mind. I'm posting my choices here to make Dog happy.


In next release:

KDD (stock): F5, F5W, etc.
 

Romulanized F5, RK5R: For R-K5R, and variants:
 

Pirate F5 (Korgath):
 

KF6: K-F6
 

RKFR: Romulanized K-F5: R-KFR
 

KHF5: Klingon HF5s and variants
   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 04:12:19 pm
Thanks!


It's always good to see what I'm "missing" and to see if there's anything out there that's better (to me) than what I'm using.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 27, 2003, 04:22:06 pm
Quote:

Thanks!


It's always good to see what I'm "missing" and to see if there's anything out there that's better (to me) than what I'm using.


 




Remember.. That's not in the current version, but in the next one.
So, what do you think?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 04:35:15 pm
Well, as you can tell by my choices of P81's B'Rel for the KFF and his K'Vort for the KDD, you and I differ on the fundamental direction the model selections should go.


I like the different skins.  I like the "Romulan-ized" versions of the Klingon models.  I like the F6 model, to a degree.  I would consider using that one.  The model fo the HF5 looks decent...I'd probably like to get a better view of it using "modview."  It's something I'd consider using for that Klingon HDW model.


For my part, if I had my druthers, I'd like to see P81's B'Rel and K'Vort useds and "Romulan-ized" or "Korgath-ized" versions of  those done.  His B'Rel and K'Vort are just top-notch in terms of detail, and overall look.  I really haven't used anything else for about as long as either of those models have been available.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 27, 2003, 04:53:36 pm
Quote:

Well, as you can tell my my choices of P81's B'Rel for the KFF and his K'Vort for the KDD, you and I differ on the fundamental direction the model selections should go.


I like the different skins.  I like the "Romulan-ized" versions of the Klingon models.  I like the F6 model, to a degree.  I would consider using that one.  The model fo the HF5 looks decent...I'd probably like to get a better view of it using "modview."  It's something I'd consider using for that Klingon HDW model.


For my part, if I had my druthers, I'd like to see P81's B'Rel and K'Vort useds and "Romulan-ized" or "Korgath-ized" versions of  those done.  His B'Rel and K'Vort are just top-notch in terms of detail, and overall look.  I really haven't used anything else for about as long as either of those models have been available.
 




I'm using my SFB background to help me choose models. Maybe that's where it's different?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 27, 2003, 05:53:05 pm
Possibly.  

Since the SFB background (which I also have) isn't necessarily always applicable to SFC, it's hard (at least for me) to say whether or not it should be the final arbiter of what "looks good" in a game that is based upon SFB, but is not itself SFB.

As always...models are a matter of taste.  They are there to add visual appeal to the game.  Within reason, I'm personally quite comfortable leaving behind "SFB" considerations in favor of what looks best to me.  This is why I am very happy to use Atrahasis' C5 model for all my KDN needs and skip the rest of the, IMHO, ugly KDN models out there.    In terms of Klingon models...if it's not done by Atrahasis, P81 or Gow, I'm generally not interested based upon what I've seen in my 2 1/2+ years as a consumer of the SFC2 product line.  I was there, like many, ast the start of SFC1, but never bothered with changing models for that game.


Your mileage may vary, of course.


As i've mentioned before, the only reason I don't use your model pack is that I don't like many of the models you've chosen.  That's why I'm very happy that you have a "no model pack" version that replicates what I already have in place and allows me to pick and choose other models I might wish to use given the expanded model pointers.  My main interest, then, is to seek out corrections and additions based upon what I see is needed.  Hence my original query about the KFF model being replicated by your installer to serve as the model fo the HF5s when you're using the KDD model for other F5s.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on August 28, 2003, 12:23:47 pm
Gosh I love this stuff.

 It is a lost cause to find a happy place for choices in models for FireSoul's refit project. I'd like to see a UN conference like meeting negotiating the standardization for the models that will be used. Just picture that for entertainment value. "Are you nuts? Atra's C5 is too good not to use. And I don't care if it does fly in the face of SFB lore. So, nya."

Speaking as one who has gone through the shplst three times trying to find the perfect model for every spec I can tell you it can't be done... yet. FireSoul's op+ refit has given a lot of momentum for producing a number of models that didn't exist before. Which makes me very happy.   The Mirak MTT he kitbashed is just wonderful. As are the tugs Emeraldedge put together. But, there are a number of considerations competing for those choices and compromizes must be made. One of the ones I made was to use the Maguellanes for the Fed HDW class. It isn't accurate but I like the model so much I had to find a place for it. I also chose Anduril's Phoenix for the GSC because it's that good and it fits well. And so on and so forth...

I have really enjoyed trying to help FireSoul with a model here and there. More often than not he didn't go for what I thought was a good choice for a particular model. He has different ideas and criteria which I respect. In the mean time I'm just going to enjoy his product and see just how much fun we can make this game. Thank's FS for all the work that has gone into this. I like it just fine and it is an easy thing to make a change here and a change there.

Happy hunting  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 28, 2003, 12:28:34 pm
I think that summed a lot of the problems: I can't make everyone happy.

However, I sure can make things a lot better, and give people the ability to make themselves happy.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on August 28, 2003, 01:24:44 pm
Quote:

I think that summed a lot of the problems: I can't make everyone happy.

However, I sure can make things a lot better, and give people the ability to make themselves happy.  






And you have done that without question.  I'm not at all trying to say otherwise.  Like I said..I appreciate the effort that has gone into OP+ since the very start of the project.  I've said that all along.  I really appreciate offering both mod packages (one with models and one without).  It makes life very easy for the guy (like me) who wants the extra model pointers and an easy way to keep what he already has in terms of models in place.  That's just awesome, honestly.


My main concern was that while using the mod in the capacity that I am, I just happened to notice something that didn't make sense in the way folders were replicated to accomodate new ship pointers.  Thanks for addressing that issue, FS.


My opinion was asked on the model screenshots that FS posted and I willingly and freely gave it.  I wasn't demanding (something I'd never do) or expecting (I'm a realist) any change.  I merely provided my opinion on the models themselves.  There are aspects of them that I like, but for me personally, I doubt I'll use them.  Exceptions might be the F6 and HF5 model.



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Pestalence on August 30, 2003, 03:53:37 am
Minor error Firesoul...

Found is shipnames.txt the hull registry for the Constellation to be incorrect...

the correct hull registry number as seen in "Doomsday Machine" is NCC-1017

like I said, minor.. the registry you have is from the Starfleet Technical Manual based off TOS. Hull registries in it are incorrect. SFB may have used it as a source material for reference.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Bernard Guignard on August 30, 2003, 07:28:04 am
Hello Firesoul
        Thank you for the op+mod its great fun playing it with the custom missions. Have you considered adding the ADB's
Old Carrier Fcvo the flat top to your shiplist. An ssd was presented in the Stellar Shadows Journal.  Keep up the great work
I'm enjoying seeing the tugs that you've been creating its adding great variety to the game.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Drakenred on August 30, 2003, 12:42:34 pm
So was the B-29

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/playtest/B29.pdf

Warp mounted aliance heavy weapons

(for example a proposed NCL for your consideration)


http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/r2_9z1.gif

or

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/r2_9z6.gif

the ever popular (R6.J4) GORN GIGANOTOSAURUS DREADNOUGHT (DNR)

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R6_j4_dnr.gif

And one that I would love to see in the Fed list,

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R2_j5_cac.gif

16 Phaser Gs, Now THAT is what I call a Mauler!

Oh and lets not forget the D-77

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R3_j5_d77.gif

   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on August 30, 2003, 01:31:46 pm
Quote:

So was the B-29

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/playtest/B29.pdf

Warp mounted aliance heavy weapons

(for example a proposed NCL for your consideration)

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/r2_9z6.gif

the ever popular (R6.J4) GORN GIGANOTOSAURUS DREADNOUGHT (DNR)

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R6_j4_dnr.gif

And one that I would love to see in the Fed list,

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R2_j5_cac.gif

16 Phaser Gs, Now THAT is what I call a Mauler!

Oh and lets not forget the D-77

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R3_j5_d77.gif

   




Well since Firesoul is using a FASA K-17 as an SFB ship, I would like to nominate D'deridex's FASA Klingon Saber as the D-77. It appears to closely resemble the SSD IMHO.

Again, this is Just my opinion.

KF  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Drakenred on August 30, 2003, 02:29:14 pm
ok now lets stop and think about this for a second,

you want him to add all of the"Oficial" C/J (Conjectural/Joke)ships?

that means that your going to see

the Fed Pol with the firepower of 10 Gatings

The Hydran "Duke John Wayne " Super heavy crusier armed with Gatling Hellbores(No I am not kidding, 4 shot single turn reload Helboars and the power to arm them) Gatling fusion beams, and Gatling P-1s

Fed Cruisers that retain the Photon fire arcs but add Addtional Drone racks = their photon (IE a NCL will get 4 more Drone racks, the CC gets 4 more Drone racks, the BCJ gets 6 more Drone racks and so forth) and double drone tracking acrost the fleet

Self propeled Battlesations

Miriak Triple space Magnum Drones(yes, you can do it with the code!)

the "Miriak" CaDG?( a Cruiser(1.0 move cost) with DN Warp,  Drone Phaser and Disrupter armament and 12 PFs

And all to get the D77

WOOOT! GO MON GO!



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Drakenred on August 30, 2003, 02:47:33 pm
Oh! I almost forgot the Phaser M Mounts for Fed ships! (thoes were basicaly P-4 with a range limmit of 75 and also had more power and batteries

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 30, 2003, 03:06:54 pm
I'm not entering anything that hasn't been published in a SFB module. (Exception: a few xships)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Bernard Guignard on August 30, 2003, 05:48:59 pm
Hi Firesoul
   Thats too bad but I respect your decision. The F-CVO  as its now called was an offical design before ADB decided change the CVA design  to a dreadnought variant. So they could convert dreadnoughts into CVA's in Federation and Empire.  The miniature has been the most popular SFB miniature and has been a consistant top seller for ADB not to mention the kitbashing potential of said miniature to make a nice  SCS and other carrier versions. I even have a copy of the first edition ssd with the old  photon freezer box that would supply the fighters with thier torps around near my desk. It was a neat CVA and playing with the miniature was just as much fun. I lost most of my first edition SFB material lent it to a person and never got it back. Good thing I nixed the idea of lending him my miniature collection or that would have went also. Well have a great labour day weekend and thanks again for all the fun matieral that you've put together.      
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Drakenred on August 30, 2003, 09:47:51 pm
Actualy, the folowing ships were techicaly built in the SFB Universe

Romulan
(R4.933) BATTLE EAGLE MEDIUM CARRIER (BEV): ( Quite posibly the worst carrier in the game)

(R4.934) BATTLEHAWK-B DESTROYER LEADER (BHB): Esentualy a conversion of the battlehawks that aparently were converted because they were hevily wrecked

(R4.J5) ROMULAN DOUBLE-HAWK (DBH):Only one produced, a ship that was basiclay only good as a convoy escort if it didnot try to manuver.  Granted, Seeing it come out from under cloak  the first time when you were chasing it probably was a unplesant surprise to most Fed captains http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R4_j5_dbh.gif KING

FALCON HEAVY MAULER (HFA):Basicaly a king Eagle Refit of the Falcon Mauler, A ship subject to the shock rules whenever you fire both the Mauler and the Plasma torps   you can recharge either the mauler or the plasma -F-torps.

(R9.936) SCREECH OWL HEAVY SCOUT (HSC):  it was a partial "King eagle" refit of the Scout eagle. aparently only one built

(R.937) SNIPE-C BATTLE FRIGATE LEADER (SNC): Only one built,

Freighter Ducktails (Added shuttel and/or transporter) and skids ((you can add on "skid" per "cargo pod" on a freighter, the skids come in two flavors, one added 1*P2+ +1 APR + 1 Battery + 1 Transpoter + 1 Lab + 1 tractor the other Adds 1 P2 one APR 1 Heavy ((IE 2 space)shuttle bay and a HTT and three transporter,(the faster to offload cargo suposedly)   are oficial, as was the "overloaded" Small and medium freighters (basicaly more cargo for padding, but slower due to the added weght and were suposedly only used for insystem runs) and "in balast" freighter, (Freightrs with out Cargo pods, faster, but fewer interals due to the lack of cargo pods) (note you cant jetison the cargo pod in a "senario" as the manuvers to undock-drop pods and redocking and intitialising interlocks and stabelising hull integrity feilds and reseting the warp coils aparently took too mutch time.  Aparently Freighers were never around when Cloaking Romulans had to fight cloaking Orion Pirates armed with Plasma torpedoes.

Klingon

(R3.J6) KLINGON DV7 HEAVY CARRIER (DV7): was probagly not built and even if built never saw service
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R3_j6_dv7.gif  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Bernard Guignard on August 31, 2003, 05:19:32 am
Quote:

I'm not entering anything that hasn't been published in a SFB module. (Exception: a few xships)  




Hi Firesoul
Does this mean that we might see Early Years ships  

 
The Old Carrier Rocks

Take Care and be well  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 31, 2003, 12:16:54 pm
I've been thinking about it..  .. but some of the old tech can't be done, and YLAs would need to be decided on. It's not in the works, but maybe one day I can try to enter some of these ships into early era.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on August 31, 2003, 03:17:12 pm
L-NMC, whom I did not enter myself (don't blame me. ) is incorrect. It has 8 ph1s and 2 ph3s. It's supposed to have 4 ph1s and 2 ph3s. I guess the weapons were copied from the L-NCA.

It will be corrected in the next release.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 04:54:42 am
With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 05, 2003, 11:40:34 am
As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.


There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  





 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 11:45:23 am
Quote:

As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 




I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 05, 2003, 12:39:04 pm
Quote:

Quote:

As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 




I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.  




I'd have to agree with the 'Smoothing out' of the ISC carriers.  Seems a little silly to adjust one groups number of fighters per carrier based on fighter strength of a particular era, if that were the case then the Z versions should be reduced as Cav 3's are overmuch.  

As for races with weak fighters getting more of them on their carriers....I don't see any more fighters on Klingon carriers than the other races.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 05, 2003, 01:15:04 pm
Quote:

Quote:

As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 




I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.  





i'm not saying you're wrong in terms of your project and Mace brings up some good points.  Your list is meant to cater to a multi-platform experience.  It's well-known that it generally can't be taken "as-is" for use in D2 play.

I'm merely trying to point out that I don't think that this change you're doing is something that will end up being used in a future D2 version of your list.  I could be wrong, of course.  I just don't see the change as being all that necessary in D2 play and I'm not sure I've ever seen this discussed as being a hot issue that needed addressing.


I'm not sure I get your menaing about "bitterness."  If you're somehow intimating that I'm bitter, I'd request you check yourself...because you're way off the mark.  If you're bitter, well, I'd say I wish you weren't but that's your issue.  


I reiterate...it's your list..."smooth out" all you like...  


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 01:51:47 pm
yeah.. well.

*I*'m bitter.. and trying not to be.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on September 05, 2003, 02:21:30 pm
C'mon Firesoul, release this already. I applaud your HEROIC efforts to distill 20+ years of game rules into a standardized shiplist. You knew going into this folks would have a difference of opinion BUT we needed a GOOD, standardized place to start. I never played SFB so I'm no rules lawyer in this arena to be sure but I do know that your shiplist is a lot of FUN to play. So lets get this thing out the door!  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 02:39:01 pm
Quote:

C'mon Firesoul, release this already. I applaud your HEROIC efforts to distill 20+ years of game rules into a standardized shiplist. You knew going into this folks would have a difference of opinion BUT we needed a GOOD, standardized place to start. I never played SFB so I'm no rules lawyer in this arena to be sure but I do know that your shiplist is a lot of FUN to play. So lets get this thing out the door!    




Only after SS2.
.. and the MIRV rack testing..  *hint hint*
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 05, 2003, 04:18:35 pm
I look forward to this testing...it should be fun!
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 05, 2003, 05:02:06 pm
Quote:

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 





Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: The_Infiltrator on September 05, 2003, 05:28:00 pm
Because, frankly, taldren doesn't even bother to consistenly follow their own rules. Not only that, the shiplist they have is full of errors.

Quick check of ISC carriers, first number fighters it carries in SFB, second number number of fighters in SFC:

CV, CVZ: 12, 12
CVA,CVAZ : 24, 16
CVE, CVEZ: 8, 4
CVL, CVLP, CVLS, CVLZ: 9, 8
CVS, CVSZ: 12, 8


As can be seen here, the fighter numbers using taldren's own rule of thumb for the CV (and variants) and the CVL (and variants) is too high.

As for ISC fighters having problems, it's not Firesoul's fault that taldren inexplicably decided that ISC fighters should not carry the plasma torpedoes that they carry in SFB. Send complaints on this to the game designers, as he has no control over that.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 05, 2003, 06:02:29 pm
Quote:

Because, frankly, taldren doesn't even bother to consistenly follow their own rules. Not only that, the shiplist they have is full of errors.

Quick check of ISC carriers, first number fighters it carries in SFB, second number number of fighters in SFC:

CV, CVZ: 12, 12
CVA,CVAZ : 24, 16
CVE, CVEZ: 8, 4
CVL, CVLP, CVLS, CVLZ: 9, 8
CVS, CVSZ: 12, 8


As can be seen here, the fighter numbers using taldren's own rule of thumb for the CV (and variants) and the CVL (and variants) is too high.

As for ISC fighters having problems, it's not Firesoul's fault that taldren inexplicably decided that ISC fighters should not carry the plasma torpedoes that they carry in SFB. Send complaints on this to the game designers, as he has no control over that.

 





Errr...so you don't think that the statement you make in your very last paragraph has anything to do with the obviously purposeful inconsistency?

It is my assumption that the carriers are they way they are for a reason....a good reason.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 05, 2003, 11:31:48 pm
Guys.. Guys.. I know what I'm doing.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Kortez on September 07, 2003, 11:25:09 am
Quote:

Quote:

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 





Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?  




I would like to know this too, because I am concerned about these changes.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: The_Infiltrator on September 07, 2003, 05:53:09 pm
Another thing FS, how about possibly adding SFB bases? WIth all the module configurations (or as many as possible). Leave the current ones and let people decide what they want.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 07, 2003, 05:59:37 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 





Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?  




I would like to know this too, because I am concerned about these changes.
 





Ok. My added ships already have the proper proportion reduction. The Taldren ships, however, do not.
If I was to do it in THEIR way, the CVD(Z) would have 24 fighters or so.  The I-CVF and CSF would have 12. Nuts.

Hence why I want to change the Taldren ships.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on September 07, 2003, 06:22:12 pm
Your logic is reasonable. People just don't want to give up advantages for their favorite ships/race. They don't look at the bigger picture.

Why should an I-CVL get 100% SFB fighter supply(9) while a comparable CVL from another race gets just 2/3rds?

I've heard the argument that the ISC need bigger squadrons because their fighters don't have Plas-F/D. However, look at the stats that Taldren gave them! I'd trade Plas-D for multiple Ph-2's and Ph-G's anyday.

FS, you can't please everyone. Keep up the good work!  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 07, 2003, 11:47:37 pm
Quote:

Your logic is reasonable. People just don't want to give up advantages for their favorite ships/race. They don't look at the bigger picture.

Why should an I-CVL get 100% SFB fighter supply(9) while a comparable CVL from another race gets just 2/3rds?

I've heard the argument that the ISC need bigger squadrons because their fighters don't have Plas-F/D. However, look at the stats that Taldren gave them! I'd trade Plas-D for multiple Ph-2's and Ph-G's anyday.

FS, you can't please everyone. Keep up the good work!  





I know. Thanks Tar.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 12:04:45 am
I don't give a rats ass about the CLV's. The CV's are what I'm concerened about. They need their 12 fighters and the CVD/Z is not a replacement for them.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 12:18:32 am
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 





Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?  




I would like to know this too, because I am concerned about these changes.
 





Ok. My added ships already have the proper proportion reduction. The Taldren ships, however, do not.
If I was to do it in THEIR way, the CVD(Z) would have 24 fighters or so.  The I-CVF and CSF would have 12. Nuts.

Hence why I want to change the Taldren ships.  





What a load of bullp00p!.
That CVD has no heavy weapons,HOW in the hell do you call is a replacement for the CV class??

Please send me some of what yer smokin!

Fine if you want to reduce the fighter levels do it across the board for all races.
Or find a way to put the heavey weps back on our fighters.

FS if you do this it will drive away all the ISC carrier pilots,I see how you say you are being fair(rollseyes).
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 12:34:29 am
Guys,
I can't make everyone happy... but at least I am making myself happy.

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 12:39:20 am
Quote:


What a load of bullp00p!.
That CVD has no heavy weapons,HOW in the hell do you call is a replacement for the CV class??

Please send me some of what yer smokin!

Fine if you want to reduce the fighter levels do it across the board for all races.
Or find a way to put the heavey weps back on our fighters.

FS if you do this it will drive away all the ISC carrier pilots,I see how you say you are being fair(rollseyes).  





The CVD is supposed to be a ship of the same size as the CV, but with a LOT more fighters. (24 SFB)

1- .. *ALL* SFB CVs have 16 fighters! Why should the ISC keep its 16-fighter CV in SFC while the others have been reduced to 12? The ISC fighters are not inferior.
2- The CVD is not a replacement, it's an enlargement... and I'm not giving it 24 in SFC.


-> I am tired of telling ISC pilots this. <-

-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 01:49:56 am
You are missing the whole point.
If you strip fighters off them carriers,it will lessen thier firepower.
And hence why bother to even fly them.

You wont see me playing on any server using such a shiplist.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 01:52:40 am
CVD Has no heavy weapons.

Oh sure Its larger then the non DN carriers,but big deal.fighters die and you are dead.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 01:55:21 am
And I still want some of what you are smoking.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 09:39:37 am
Taldren made their dictates.  They are not fair to all.

Taldren could not accurately portray Offensive Pl-D, which probably would have been the only Plasma-race heavy fighter weapon.  As they are basically 50% strength Pl-Fs...

As such, Taldren gave us lovely phaser-only fighters.  In a perfect world, these fighters would need to close to range 0 in order to deliver an accurate strike.  The best ISC fighter, the Caveat III, carries 2xPh-G & 1-Ph2 FH, Ph-G RX.  These fighters, when they fire @ range 4 (outside effective AMD range) average (assuming either LF or RF shot where all the phasers come to bear) 4.8 damage per fighter, with a max of 15 (assuming all 1s and 2s on the Gats, and a 1 for the Ph-2).
Admittedly, these fighters are evil in close, maximum damage of 54 per fighter at range 0.  How many Fed / Klink / Mirak fighters, on average, get into range 0, strike, and survive the retreat?

Knowing fighter survivability rates, Taldren intentionally gave the ISC more fighters.  It was said so many moons ago.

You seek as close as possible of a SFB translation to SFC as possible in your shiplist.  You also claim to keep the Taldren way of doing things.  I repeat.  Taldren decreed the ISC is due a higher fighter ratio per carrier than everyone else as ISC fighters have no heavy weapons.  They intentionally ignored their 2/3rd fighter rule as we have no heavy weapons.

Your work is excellent.  I enjoy your project, and thank you heartily for the time invested.  I just question this one decision of yours.  In my opinion, by dropping the ISC fighter ratios to the same as everyone elses, you violate your decision of "as close to Taldren's original as possible".  

My opinions:
Gamespy pays for these fighters at their declared BPV.  D2 pays to carry them, though they are not figured into the force calculations.  SP, people can do what they want anyway.  By keeping the Original Taldren ISC fighter ratios, which does mean more fighters on the newer carriers, players can restrict themselves to smaller fighter counts themselves, if they wish to.  By forcing this reduction down the chain, it prevents the freedom of choice allocated all players since this game came out.
I also admit that fighter adjustments due to other concerns (such as fighter ECM) may be in order.  However, as they apply to everyone's fighters, these adjustments should be considered and applied globally.  Even if it's a +X BPV per Phaser carried and our fighters shoot up 3-6 BPV each cause they carry so many phasers.

I know it's player tendency to look out for their race.  I look at it because people who play one race usually are familiar with both their strengths and weaknesses.  As for the ISC, we were understandably upset when we first had to pay for, then lost, (in EAW) one of our SFC advantages in the I-torps.  We complained when the change came down, adjusted, and lived with it.  I feel many pilots were ready to live with the change to proper SFB limits in OP if it wasn't for the bugs that came with that change.  So we live with the higher BPV and price.  ISC fighter ratios are balanced by their replacement costs and survivability.  Tort III fighters carry 2 Ph-2s each, and 16 of them are about as effective as carrying a 4-pack of K-G2s that can be killed by AMD.  And it costs us about as much for 16 Torts as a K-G2.  The Caveat IIIs are just as bad for us.  We're paying for fighters that work effectively like Pl-R drones.  If a fighter closes to range 0 and unloads everything, it does about as much damage as a Pl-R.  And after AMD, phasers, T-bombs etc, they live just about as long as a drone.  One pass.  And I think it costs us more for a full pack of Caveats than it does a Mirak to load up with all fast drones.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 09:46:20 am
Good post Julin..

.. however this campaign hasn't convinced me that ISC fighters with so many gatlings are inferior. Suggestions?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 08, 2003, 09:48:05 am
A mistake is still a mistake whatever you want to call it.  And if it removes some of the carriers from the battlefield then all the better.

I always thought the ISC were a good all around race and not a carrier race only.

Why should the other carriers be reduced along with the errant ISC carriers.  How about we raise the other carriers to match the ISC loadouts??  Would that be better???

As for the lack of heavy weapons on ISC fighters, lets take look at the other races  so called heavy weapons on fighters.  Disrupters and photons and fusions range of about 4 with very little damage hellbore and missiles are the only things close to being effective but they both have reduced damage 4 for the big fighter drone 2 for the little one and I think the fighter hellbore does half normal damage.  

Do the ISC fighters use low powered weapons??  Nope, standard phasers and lots of them which also means they don't use ammo.

This has become tiresome.......
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 10:25:21 am
It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rob Cole on September 08, 2003, 10:29:20 am
Mace,

Our fighters tend to go to range 3 to range0.

Hence we lose a bunch of them in ship explosions.

I have lost all 16 before on the CVAZ when a BCH blew.

Beside this is starting to look like a"I cant beat them so lets nerf them thread"

The next thing you will say is that the Miraks have to many drones
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 10:29:36 am
Quote:

It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.  





Ok. Say I was to add 4 APRs. Tell me which *continuous* 4 boxes to remove? (of same type) That shuttlebay is mighty huge for a variant of a CC. Have it make sense.. something that takes hullspace..

-- Luc

edit:continuous.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 10:39:21 am
Quote:

Quote:

It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.  





Ok. Say I was to add 4 APRs. Tell me which *continuous* 4 boxes to remove? (of same type) That shuttlebay is mighty huge for a variant of a CC. Have it make sense.. something that takes hullspace..

-- Luc

edit:continuous.





Look just answer me this - What did the other races BCH's lose to place 8 fighters (2/4 PF's) on them? It surely wasn't power. I would happily lose 4 shuttles and consign the BCV to 2 shuts max instead of losing power.


OK, correct that - The BCV already lost 2 max shuttles. Well I don't know about the other players, but I would be willing to loose two more max shuttles and two fighters (that makes two max shuttles and six fighters). That four points of power is really that imporatnt on that ship. Four more hull is also an option, but that wouldn't be my choice.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rod O'neal on September 08, 2003, 11:08:39 am
This might or might not be a viable alternative/compromise, but I'll throw it out there. would increasing the damage for ISC fighters work? This would make the squadrons more survivable but not add more firepower. Seems like most of the complaints revolve around losing the ftrs too fast.

There is a precedent for this in SFB, if you need one. ISC ships run about 20% larger per size class than the rest of the races. maybe in SFC it needs to be carried over to the ftrs as well?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 11:11:31 am
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.  





Ok. Say I was to add 4 APRs. Tell me which *continuous* 4 boxes to remove? (of same type) That shuttlebay is mighty huge for a variant of a CC. Have it make sense.. something that takes hullspace..

-- Luc

edit:continuous.





Look just answer me this - What did the other races BCH's lose to place 8 fighters (4 PF's) on them? It surely wasn't power. I would happily lose 4 shuttles and consign the BCV to 2 shuts max instead of losing power.  




PF Tenders require 4-8 repair boxes for the PFs as well as the necessary mechlinks. The Lyran's BCH was designed with repairs as the default config and would come with PFs as standard.


No can do. 2 of the old shuttlebays themselves have been converted to fighterbays. The APRs have been removed to move the batteries from the centerhull to the right side of the ship. The 6 additional fighterbays were additions to the ship. I guess the designer prefered to keep the batteries (which are very important in SFB) over the APR.

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and  add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?

--
I agree that this is a special case, where SFC conversion needed some balance to compete with other BCHs. Would this solve the whole carrier issue ISCs seem to be having in order to compete with BCHs?

To Miraks: The MIRV loadouts would be your balance enhancement.





 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 08, 2003, 11:20:25 am
Quote:

Mace,

Our fighters tend to go to range 3 to range0.

Hence we lose a bunch of them in ship explosions.

I have lost all 16 before on the CVAZ when a BCH blew.

Beside this is starting to look like a"I cant beat them so lets nerf them thread"

The next thing you will say is that the Miraks have to many drones  




Man, I see what you mean.  thats too bad about your cav III's dying at range 0 from an exploding ship, we don't have that problem with Lancer III's.  Of course thats because the ships don't explode from range 0 Lancer III's.    

But you know what, it just doesn't matter.  He's gonna change it cause it's his baby.  That's not to say it'll stay that way on the server.  I'm sure you'll have your standard CV's as thats what you ISC regulars like to fly most.  And it's good to see a bunch of guys flying ISC on the server, heck it's good to see a bunch of people on the server period.

Oh, and I never said I couldn't beat them.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 11:21:07 am
Quote:

This might or might not be a viable alternative/compromise, but I'll throw it out there. would increasing the damage for ISC fighters work? This would make the squadrons more survivable but not add more firepower. Seems like most of the complaints revolve around losing the ftrs too fast.

There is a precedent for this in SFB, if you need one. ISC ships run about 20% larger per size class than the rest of the races. maybe in SFC it needs to be carried over to the ftrs as well?    




Not bad. Not bad at all.

Usually:
Patrol:  11, 12, 12
Heavy: 12, 14, 15
Interceptor: 10, 12 ,12

I'm thinking:
12, 13, 13
13, 15, 16
11, 13, 13


In other words: 10-13: +1   14,15: +2
In a group of 4, that would make a heck of a difference. (1 pt can make a heck of a difference, because if the fighter only needs 1 point to kill, a player may waste a full ph1 just for 1 fighter kill)

Note: I would also increase the BPV of all fighters by 1, except the basic fighter.
Exception: I would leave the basic Restitution.I as is, as to not unbalance BPV on ships. (2 BPV per fighter. Fighter is identical to all races')
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 11:23:58 am
Quote:

Another thing FS, how about possibly adding SFB bases? WIth all the module configurations (or as many as possible). Leave the current ones and let people decide what they want.  




Not.. very practical. The only time I know I will encounter a Base is in D2, and it's different at very mission. Refits are good, but variance tends to make things screwy. Also, the Taldren bases have been made differently: a bit stronger.

.. probably to compensate for missing minefields.


I'd like to add X1 versions of bases, but I would need to understand the Taldren style first. (Gats on bases.. yuck)
Think: BSX.. and BTX... scary?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 11:27:07 am
Quote:

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?





That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 11:33:00 am
I checked SFCShadow's hint guide.

The only ISC fighters with Gatlings are the III line.  The Writ, Tort and Restitiution III each have one Forward-area Gatling (Usually FH but one's FX).  The Caveat assault fighter, instead of having drones and heavy weapons, gets 3 Gatlings, 2 FH and one RX.

For comparison, the Hydran Wasp III Fighter has 2 Gats FH & 2 Fusions FX.  I'm tempted to say the RX gat may make up for the 2 Fusions...  Fed Raven III, Gat FH, Photon FX (2 rounds), Fighter Dro-1 rack, 4 shots.  The additional 2 Gats make up for the photon & drones...

Personally, I think the entire Assault-III line is rediculously overpowered, whether Wasp, Caveat or Basenji.  Too bad the double-space restrictions never worked right...

You asked for a recommendation to "fix" the 3 Gat Caveats?  Here's a couple, possibly usable to fix the entire "assault" fighter issue, whether feasable or not.
  • Enforce the double-space fighter rule across the board.
  • Weaken all the supposedly double space assault fighters to more reasonable single space loadouts, as they are effectively single space fighters.
  • Make dedicated heavy carriers, with proper heavy fighter loadouts, restrict the assault fighters to those carriers, and remove them from general purchase.
  • Adjust BPVs for fighters.  I admit, the way Fighter ECM works makes phasers more powerful.  Any phaser BPV adjustments should be global to all races.
  • Allow the ISC Phaser-1 pod(s) in lieu of heavy weapons, and adjust the Gatling / remaining phaser loadout to appropriate levels.  Once the ISC gets a "heavy weapon" pod (as fighter phasers are rechargable and SFB Ph-1 pods aren't), loadout reduction is appropriate.  I'd say 1 Ph-1 in place of 2 drones / heavy weapons on comprable fighters is appropriate due to rechargability.  Most ISC fighers would have at most 1 Ph-1, Caveats get 2.  My only concern, how would these Ph-1's work in light of the Fighter ECM issue.  Also, with a "heavy weapon", reduction to the 2/3rd standard is appropriate.
  • Allow the ISC (who Taldren has hijacking every one else's technology) to shoplift fighter heavy weapons.  Disruptors, Photons, Hellbores, etc.  Again, loadout adjustment and fighter count reduction is appropriate.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on September 08, 2003, 11:45:37 am
Umm.... Am I correct in assuming that some of the ISC fighters should have some heavy weapons in SFB?

If so.... can the DroD be substituted in for it?

I have tested it, and the DroD does work with fighters in OP.  

(are DroD even in EaW? I should probably go look)
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 11:54:59 am
Yep.  SFB ISC FIghters carry heavy weapons.

The "superiority" fighters carry Pl-D, and the "tactical" fighters carry carrier-rechargable Pl-F.

In SFC, there's no "dogfight" plasma to give the appropriate 50% damage reduction to the superiority fighters (as Pl-D is effectively a 50% strength Pl-F in a drone case), and it has been believed that the Dro-D still is plagued by speed issues (ie, Medium Speed Dro-Ds ignore shields) in both EAW and OP.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 11:59:59 am
Quote:

Umm.... Am I correct in assuming that some of the ISC fighters should have some heavy weapons in SFB?

If so.... can the DroD be substituted in for it?

I have tested it, and the DroD does work with fighters in OP.  

(are DroD even in EaW? I should probably go look)  




The DroD does work , but there are major issues related to speed.
However! If you Set it right, it can be a unique weapon for just the ISC.

From memory, may be wrong.
The Slow early DroD does 10 points of damage. I think it acts normally.
The Med DroD does 10 points of damage, but ignores shields! (bad)
The Fast DroD does 20 points of damage and is envelopping! (wtf!)


What we could do is have 1 such weapon on the fighters, no reloads. The fighter would appear in LATE ONLY. I would think that about 2281 (18) is good, in response to PFs. Its *UNIQUE* weapon would be the EPT DroD.

I played with this in the past. It's nice. I Called them the Satane.IIIs or something. (heee)
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 02:24:11 pm
That may be a workable idea.

the things about those EPT Dro-Ds would be that they do approx. 2 damage to each shield.  If they are somewhat effective (on the order of other fighter weapons), then I'd agree to a re-make of ISC fighters where we get these at appropriate levels (ie, lighter fighters get 1, heavier fighters get 2), with a couple of reloads (2) like fighter drones have.  

As far as unique weapons go, this definitely sounds like a workable idea, I may have to try this sometime to see how effective this  really is...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 08, 2003, 03:46:37 pm
Quote:

Good post Julin..

.. however this campaign hasn't convinced me that ISC fighters with so many gatlings are inferior. Suggestions?  





You're right...you know why?  Because we're using Taldren's model of the fighter loadout conversion for the ISC CVLs and CVs--- not yours.  


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 08, 2003, 04:01:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?





That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.  





I liked it much better when we were talking about giving more power to the I-BCV and just leaving it with it's 8 fighters (like everyone elses BCV).


I'd agree that doing without batteries and adding 4xAPR is something that won't trouble an ISC captain.  As others have said, I think many of us are flying carriers is because the I-BCV is such a complete waste of time.  On LB4, even adding two power (for total of 42) helped, but still wasn't great.  Take 11% of the warp power on most ships and you end up with a decided POS, Caveat-IIIs notwithstanding.





 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 04:04:00 pm
Quote:

(for total of 44)




Check yer math Rover!  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 08, 2003, 04:09:38 pm
Funny...I was thinking "44 power" in general as ideal and ended up typing it instead of "42"....corrected.  



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 04:30:39 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?





That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.  





I liked it much better when we were talking about giving more power to the I-BCV and just leaving it with it's 8 fighters (like everyone elses BCV).


I'd agree that doing without batteries and adding 4xAPR is something that won't trouble an ISC captain.  As others have said, I think many of us are flying carriers is because the I-BCV is such a complete waste of time.  On LB4, even adding two power (for total of 42) helped, but still wasn't great.  Take 11% of the warp power on most ships and you end up with a decided POS, Caveat-IIIs notwithstanding.

 




The ship must have batteries.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 05:13:04 pm
I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 05:18:35 pm
Quote:

I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  




Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 08, 2003, 06:04:17 pm
Quote:

Quote:

I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  




Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.  




Thank you.  That will at least help out a few ships.  I wasn't sure if that was new as my current CCY only has the one twinned hardpoint...
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 08, 2003, 06:15:42 pm
Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 08, 2003, 06:40:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  




Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.  




Thank you.  That will at least help out a few ships.  I wasn't sure if that was new as my current CCY only has the one twinned hardpoint...
 




I did it a few nights ago at the first request I got. So.. obviously not in SS2 .. because it's not released material yet.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 09, 2003, 11:34:13 am
Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 09, 2003, 11:35:31 am
Quote:

Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.  





I'm in agreement.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 09, 2003, 12:17:06 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.  





I'm in agreement.  




Glad to hear it, because that carrier will still have its weaknesses:
.. having only 2 shuttlebays on a carrier will really hurt you..
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 09, 2003, 01:25:48 pm
Quote:

Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.





The ISC needs at least one dog ship to make up for our quality everywhere else...

I look at it this way.  With the dual hardpoints, you can fly it just like a CAZ with fighters and extra padding on the PPD, you can fly it as a slower CCZ with fighters, or do what all good carriers are supposed to do, castle and let the fighters kill the enemy...

We always could beg for a fully powered BCV and treat it like the CAAZ, with a 1.25 move cost due to all the extra stuff...  

On my other concern:

Until positive word comes back on fighter testing for the Dro-D equipped ISC fighters, I believe that we are stuck with the current Phaser fighters.  Are the plans still calling for a fighter cutback, or do we keep the ISC-special fighter ratios due to the phaser fighters?  As I shown in my previous post, on our best fighter, we get gatlings in lieu of a fighter heavy weapon or a drone rack's worth of drone shots.  While heavy weapons or drones are nearly just as effective outside AMD range (4) as they are at range 0, gatlings are not.  Gatlings also do not deplete AMD racks to allow unmolested fighter strikes.  We need the extra one to two squadrons to deplete enough AMD letting the remaining fighter groups in.  Fighters we must replace at cost / waste repairs on while drones reload for free.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Karnak on September 09, 2003, 01:53:28 pm
The ISC needs a I-BCV-class ship that can compete with the L-BCHT without too many sacrifices made.  As Corbomite pointed out, most other races get BCV ship conversion without any sacrifices on power so there's no reason that the ISC should be the first in trading power boxes for fighter-bays for such conversions; especially, when all other ISC weapons suck up power.

The I-CCV ship looks like a fair compromise.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 09, 2003, 03:52:26 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.





The ISC needs at least one dog ship to make up for our quality everywhere else...

I look at it this way.  With the dual hardpoints, you can fly it just like a CAZ with fighters and extra padding on the PPD, you can fly it as a slower CCZ with fighters, or do what all good carriers are supposed to do, castle and let the fighters kill the enemy...

We always could beg for a fully powered BCV and treat it like the CAAZ, with a 1.25 move cost due to all the extra stuff...  

On my other concern:

Until positive word comes back on fighter testing for the Dro-D equipped ISC fighters, I believe that we are stuck with the current Phaser fighters.  Are the plans still calling for a fighter cutback, or do we keep the ISC-special fighter ratios due to the phaser fighters?  As I shown in my previous post, on our best fighter, we get gatlings in lieu of a fighter heavy weapon or a drone rack's worth of drone shots.  While heavy weapons or drones are nearly just as effective outside AMD range (4) as they are at range 0, gatlings are not.  Gatlings also do not deplete AMD racks to allow unmolested fighter strikes.  We need the extra one to two squadrons to deplete enough AMD letting the remaining fighter groups in.  Fighters we must replace at cost / waste repairs on while drones reload for free.  





Increasing the fighter HPs seems like a good suggestion. It increases survivability by a lot. That should compensate for the lack of heavy weapons: add armor.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 09, 2003, 04:18:18 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.  





I'm in agreement.  




Glad to hear it, because that carrier will still have its weaknesses:
.. having only 2 shuttlebays on a carrier will really hurt you..  




Naturally, I didn't say it was the best solution, nor did I say it wouldn't have its weaknesses.  I did say that it seemed to be the best solution posted so far.  Is there a better one?  Possibly.


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 09, 2003, 04:23:26 pm
True enough, Julin.  You can fly the I-BCV like a lot of things...except a BCV.    This was given as a reason why so many ISC captains opt for the CVs when they are available and thus why so many weren't happy with the proposed fighter loadout change.


I'm still not sure that will ever get adopted for D2 play, but an improved BCV for the ISC and perhaps making their fighters more durable might make a little more likely.  As good as those CAveat-III's are, I still buck at the prospect of losing them when ships explode.  It's just another reason I stay in a line ship even though flying something else would give me faster missions and (apparently) frighten people unduly.  



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 02:03:21 am
ok..


here's what I am going to do about ISC issues.
1- file the I-CCV idea for later. Try the mountpoint splits first on the ISC ships. I don't want to add my own creation in the shiplist at this time. I want to fight the modified BCV for a while first, and see how better it is.
2- implement the fighter loadout corrections on unequal ISC carriers
3- Increase the # hull on all fighters except Reclamation.Is (stock) and Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 10, 2003, 09:35:01 am
Quote:

Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 



This is ridiculous.  If you shoot a thousand P-3s from fighters at a ship with a shift of 2(4 ecm) then they should do 0 damage.  No chance to hit at all 0 0 0 0   A shield (with ecm protection) should never drop from P-3's at range 15 no matter how many are fired.   How is this happening??????

Also, if you don't add points to the cav 3's then it's moot as that's all they use.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 10, 2003, 09:55:52 am
Fighters have 2 ECCM. You'd need 6 ECM to get a 2 shift.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 10, 2003, 10:21:33 am
Quote:

Fighters have 2 ECCM. You'd need 6 ECM to get a 2 shift.  




Yes, but I'd really only need 3 to get a shift of 1 which is all you need to get no damage out of a phaser 3 at range 15.

I just said 4 as this is the norm for most players which would end up being 2 due to the fighters 2 eccm that leave us with 2 ecm and a shift of 1.  You show me the dice it takes to roll a 1 on when you have to add 1 to the roll.

I used to play SFB with this guy that always seemed to do too much damage.  We caught him one time doing more damage in a Fed CA that was possible at that range.  Talk about your magic photons.  Maybe he was using those magic dice too.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mog on September 10, 2003, 12:09:24 pm
Agree with jimmi on the ph3 damage being impossible outside range 8 through a +1 shift. Looks like the fighters ignore ECM bug is back (or never went away).

As for an I-BCV with 44 power. The CCZ itself will beat any BCV, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Put 8 Caveat IIIs on it and it will take a BB to stop it in 1v1. The CCZ is half of why I don't play ISC anymore - too easy to win with it. Cav IIIs are the other half - again they make it too easy.

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 12:12:39 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 



This is ridiculous.  If you shoot a thousand P-3s from fighters at a ship with a shift of 2(4 ecm) then they should do 0 damage.  No chance to hit at all 0 0 0 0   A shield (with ecm protection) should never drop from P-3's at range 15 no matter how many are fired.   How is this happening??????

Also, if you don't add points to the cav 3's then it's moot as that's all they use.  









Fine. It's the ph2s that slow you down at range 15. I'll add the hull to the Cav.IIIs.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 12:16:03 pm
This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Corbomite on September 10, 2003, 12:32:42 pm
When it comes down to it you can do what you want. All we are trying to get across is that you just can't plop ships from SFB into SFC and expect it all to work out. Case in point, that BCHT you like to fly is so OTT it gives cheese a bad name...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Karnak on September 10, 2003, 12:48:01 pm
Quote:

ok..


here's what I am going to do about ISC issues.
1- file the I-CCV idea for later. Try the mountpoint splits first on the ISC ships. I don't want to add my own creation in the shiplist at this time. I want to fight the modified BCV for a while first, and see how better it is.
2- implement the fighter loadout corrections on unequal ISC carriers
3- Increase the # hull on all fighters except Reclamation.Is (stock) and Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 




I would do the I-CCV idea now cuz the server admins will probably do it on their own for your shiplist when they use it in a campaign if you don't; especially, after they read the last 10 or so posts in this thread regarding ISC ship changes and the ISC veteran pilots' reactions to them.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on September 10, 2003, 12:55:31 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  




Quote:

When it comes down to it you can do what you want. All we are trying to get across is that you just can't plop ships from SFB into SFC and expect it all to work out. Case in point, that BCHT you like to fly is so OTT it gives cheese a bad name...  




Actually, that is why the ADMINS must adjust the shiplist for the servers.  FS stated from the start, his goal was to bring as many SFB ships into the shiplist as possible.  He also stated that the admins should limit the ships as they see fit.

All in all, I don't think the BCHT is way OTT.  But when you have to face one after another, after another, after another.... You're gonna lose eventually.

IMO, if we are gonna do an OOB, then all hull sizes larger or outside of normal heavy line crusiers have to be on an OOB also.

FS, you are doing a great job with the OP+ shiplist.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 10, 2003, 12:58:17 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  




This is easily understandable.

Can't win for losing.

I for one have nothing really bad to say about the shiplist, but then again I am an SFB'er....
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on September 10, 2003, 12:58:37 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  




At least you get feedback. I hear people say that Shipwrights 8.13 sucks, is broken, doesn't work, etc., but nobody tells me why. It is frustrating. I'm just about finished trying to enhance the game for a largely apathetic or empire-centric player pool.

http://www.webspace4me.net/~tarminyatur/sw.html
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 01:02:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  




At least you get feedback. I hear people say that Shipwrights 8.13 sucks, is broken, doesn't work, etc., but nobody tells me why. It is frustrating. I'm just about finished trying to enhance the game for a largely apathetic or empire-centric player pool.

http://www.webspace4me.net/~tarminyatur/sw.html  





What's your impartial opinion on these ISC changes that MAY happen, Tar?
-- Luc
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 10, 2003, 05:29:24 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  





Heaven forbid someone should comment on something you say and *gasp* not agree with you.


Silly me...I thought that part of the reason for this thread (and these fora as a whole) was to discuss issues relating this this project and anything else relating to the SFC family of games.


If you have such a problem with people commenting, I can't for the life of me see why you would post your intentions publicly and constantly (and in my opionion wholly appropriately because it's a wonderful thing) crow about your project.


I can't speak for others, but my involvement in this thread has been to try to help and/or ask perfectly valid questions.  Every time I do, you get a little arrogant/snippy.  If you don't want questions or opinions from anyone, please state it as being such next time and we'll all (or at least I will) keep our mouths shut.


Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 10, 2003, 06:09:45 pm
Quote:

Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  





Heaven forbid someone should comment on something you say and *gasp* not agree with you.


Silly me...I thought that part of the reason for this thread (and these fora as a whole) was to discuss issues relating this this project and anything else relating to the SFC family of games.


If you have such a problem with people commenting, I can't for the life of me see why you would post your intentions publicly and constantly (and in my opionion wholly appropriately because it's a wonderful thing) crow about your project.


I can't speak for others, but my involvement in this thread has been to try to help and/or ask perfectly valid questions.  Every time I do, you get a little arrogant/snippy.  If you don't want questions or opinions from anyone, please state it as being such next time and we'll all (or at least I will) keep our mouths shut.


 





This thread is for corrections from SFB materials.  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: The_Infiltrator on September 10, 2003, 06:53:27 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Another thing FS, how about possibly adding SFB bases? WIth all the module configurations (or as many as possible). Leave the current ones and let people decide what they want.  




Not.. very practical. The only time I know I will encounter a Base is in D2, and it's different at very mission. Refits are good, but variance tends to make things screwy. Also, the Taldren bases have been made differently: a bit stronger.

.. probably to compensate for missing minefields.


I'd like to add X1 versions of bases, but I would need to understand the Taldren style first. (Gats on bases.. yuck)
Think: BSX.. and BTX... scary?  





FS, reconsider please. There ARE other venues than GZ and D2 play. Bases would be a welcome addition.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: The_Infiltrator on September 10, 2003, 08:04:14 pm
Quote:

I checked SFCShadow's hint guide.

The only ISC fighters with Gatlings are the III line.  The Writ, Tort and Restitiution III each have one Forward-area Gatling (Usually FH but one's FX).  The Caveat assault fighter, instead of having drones and heavy weapons, gets 3 Gatlings, 2 FH and one RX.

For comparison, the Hydran Wasp III Fighter has 2 Gats FH & 2 Fusions FX.  I'm tempted to say the RX gat may make up for the 2 Fusions...  Fed Raven III, Gat FH, Photon FX (2 rounds), Fighter Dro-1 rack, 4 shots.  The additional 2 Gats make up for the photon & drones...

Personally, I think the entire Assault-III line is rediculously overpowered, whether Wasp, Caveat or Basenji.  Too bad the double-space restrictions never worked right...

You asked for a recommendation to "fix" the 3 Gat Caveats?  Here's a couple, possibly usable to fix the entire "assault" fighter issue, whether feasable or not.
  • Enforce the double-space fighter rule across the board.
  • Weaken all the supposedly double space assault fighters to more reasonable single space loadouts, as they are effectively single space fighters.
  • Make dedicated heavy carriers, with proper heavy fighter loadouts, restrict the assault fighters to those carriers, and remove them from general purchase.
  • Adjust BPVs for fighters.  I admit, the way Fighter ECM works makes phasers more powerful.  Any phaser BPV adjustments should be global to all races.
  • Allow the ISC Phaser-1 pod(s) in lieu of heavy weapons, and adjust the Gatling / remaining phaser loadout to appropriate levels.  Once the ISC gets a "heavy weapon" pod (as fighter phasers are rechargable and SFB Ph-1 pods aren't), loadout reduction is appropriate.  I'd say 1 Ph-1 in place of 2 drones / heavy weapons on comprable fighters is appropriate due to rechargability.  Most ISC fighers would have at most 1 Ph-1, Caveats get 2.  My only concern, how would these Ph-1's work in light of the Fighter ECM issue.  Also, with a "heavy weapon", reduction to the 2/3rd standard is appropriate.
  • Allow the ISC (who Taldren has hijacking every one else's technology) to shoplift fighter heavy weapons.  Disruptors, Photons, Hellbores, etc.  Again, loadout adjustment and fighter count reduction is appropriate.

 




Your post has several problems with it.

First, none of the L3 fighters are double space. If it was you'd have a dual gatling, hellbore and fusion armed hydran fighter. Second, the wasp you list above is actually very close to the Stinger-X. However, the stinger X is available sooner than the wasp III, can go speed 31 while performing erratic manuvers and with 2 ECM pods. Third there is no such animal as a phaser-1 pod. There is a single shot phaser-3 pod.  Fourth SFB style ECM for fighters is much more powerful and useful than SFC fighter ECM.

The real problems with fighters are the way that heavy weapons in general for them are implimented. Unfortunately, there's no fix for this, just like there's no way to get a true SCS in the game.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: AdmiralFrey_XC on September 11, 2003, 01:59:20 pm
Quote:

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.





Didn't someone mention something to me just the other day about over reacting?

Quote:

Heaven forbid someone should comment on something you say and *gasp* not agree with you.


Silly me...I thought that part of the reason for this thread (and these fora as a whole) was to discuss issues relating this this project and anything else relating to the SFC family of games.


If you have such a problem with people commenting, I can't for the life of me see why you would post your intentions publicly and constantly (and in my opionion wholly appropriately because it's a wonderful thing) crow about your project.


I can't speak for others, but my involvement in this thread has been to try to help and/or ask perfectly valid questions.  Every time I do, you get a little arrogant/snippy.  If you don't want questions or opinions from anyone, please state it as being such next time and we'll all (or at least I will) keep our mouths shut.







Doggy does have a point. Something I was reminded of recently as well : if you ask for feedback, don't get mad if it's not what you wanted to hear.

Quote:



This thread is for corrections from SFB materials.  





Luc, making this offhand statement is what gives everyone the impression you could care less about the feedback unless it's feedback you agree with. How could you make this statement in regards to the current discussion focal, which is that - GASP - once again it's proven that SFB to SFC direct ports just....don't.....work.....100%, which is why there's a big balloo about the ISC Fighters, as well as a couple other things... lol


Luc, you've done some fantastic work, there's no doubting that, but may I suggest you take a step back, and just make sure you're where you want to be right now regarding SFC?

EDIT : bold looked stupid, fixed it.

Regards,
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 11, 2003, 02:41:38 pm
I may be overreacting for now.. but remember that I've been on this since April '02 and maybe it's time to think about a wrappup. However, there's still material to cover and things to tweak.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: AdmiralFrey_XC on September 11, 2003, 04:28:45 pm
Now that's the Firesoul I know !!

Let me know if you need any help testing out the "new material".

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 11, 2003, 05:32:18 pm
Quote:

Now that's the Firesoul I know !!

Let me know if you need any help testing out the "new material".

 




Thanks, Frey.  I appreciated your previous (to this one) post.  


In addtion, I'm more that interested in helping test these changes/tweaks, as I have been all along.  That interest, as well as my appreciation for the OP+ project and all of FireSoul's hard work has never wavered.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Rogue on September 11, 2003, 07:01:37 pm
Quote:

I may be overreacting for now.. but remember that I've been on this since April '02 and maybe it's time to think about a wrappup. However, there's still material to cover and things to tweak.  




Well, I've never offerd a word of critcism and have only bugged you when I thought I may know of something that may interest you. I speak as a fan and supporter of your project. All of this will wind down someday... and all we will have are the archived projets people like yourself have worked so hard on. I wouldn't be surprised if I find myself flying a campaign with your spec list a decade from now. I kid you not.

And, disturbingly, I havn't been able to make SFC work on my new big, bad WinXP pro machine yet. This is what keeps me on my old rig.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: TarMinyatur on September 11, 2003, 07:48:22 pm
Quote:


What's your impartial opinion on these ISC changes that MAY happen, Tar?
-- Luc  




I can't be totally impartial. I'd resist adding even more armor to any fighter or giving the ISC DroD. ISC fighters are not inferior. The 2/3 ratio should be applied consistently.

I believe that SFC has undergone an unfortunate arms race especially in the fighter department. The impetus behind it is poor fighter AI (which is now better than it has ever been--no borderphobia, minimum speed set to 20, stopping bug eliminated), the multiplayer AMD echo bug (which has been fixed, no longer echoes damage by number of clients), and the damage allocation process for squadrons (which has been adjusted to allow a lot of overkill). We now have these changes that improve fighter effectiveness but have not reconsidered the initial fighter specs to see if they are still appropriate. I realize that fighters have limited regeneration, but this is often inconsequential if your fighters have more firepower than a Battleship and cost similar to an  FF. Even the AI's inability to fire Ph-3's wisely doesn't matter when the fighters can fly at speed 27+.  Naturally, the only opponents you see are those that field a lot of missiles to exploit the AI's lack of self-preservation or you'll see escorts(G-rack/Plas-D) or a few super-ships. Understandably, it would be suicide to take a ship that can't outrun fighters or has poor PD. So you get boring combat consisting of BCH's, CWL's, DWL's, Escorts, and Carriers. There are hundreds of other ships to fly but the vast majority of them gather dust because of this arms race. Campaigns can mitigate this problem somewhat. My focus is on GSA play.

My main point is: What do we gain from of CV's, Escorts, and PFT's? Do they make the game any more fun for either side? Do they add tactical depth?

I think we would be better off without them. They are used because of the escalating arms race that started with EAW, continued to OP, and is furthered by the OP+ refit. More ship selection ironically leads to less variety.

This is all opinion. I'll read any criticism but I'm done with this thread and this forum outside of bug reports and mechanical info.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Mog on September 11, 2003, 07:53:24 pm
I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: DH123 on September 12, 2003, 09:19:14 am
Quote:

I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.  




Which is why I miss Early Era so much . . .    
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 12, 2003, 12:24:37 pm
Quote:

Quote:

I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.  




Which is why I miss Early Era so much . . .    





But the Roms and Klingons tend not to...


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 12, 2003, 12:26:16 pm
Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 12, 2003, 02:59:23 pm
Quote:

Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.  





*wince*



Although not as bad, a stock F5 never seemed like a dream vacation to Raisa, either...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: DH123 on September 12, 2003, 05:07:36 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.  





*wince*



Although not as bad, a stock F5 never seemed like a dream vacation to Raisa, either...  




Stock F-DD with Evil Dave missions on AOTK.  Beat that!  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 12, 2003, 05:55:03 pm
I thought I just did.  Did you miss the F5 part?



 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 12, 2003, 05:59:29 pm
Guys.. guys..
.. take it to the D2 forums. At some point I'm going to review all the data here and will have to reread all of this, so don't make it more difficult for me.. .. please?
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Carrie on September 13, 2003, 04:46:51 pm
Now that I'm back on the forums after an absence, and have started playing the current version of OP+ 3.0, I'd just like to thank you, Firesoul. With the new classes and models, (especially adding the new patch) I've had my best gaming experience since reinstalling OP on the new patch that I've had in months, diddling with a few other games that were supposedly 'better' just for being newer. OP+ has, by far, the best replayability even in single player, of any game I know. And OP+ is a whole lot of the reason why. I'll be looking forward to the next release with neato models, of course ... But until then, I'm a happy SFCer (and old SFBer) tonight.  You're the best

Carrie

PS:

Not to be annjoying, but on a fed mission I was playing tonight, a C7V and D6DR were for some reason using what you mentioned as the Cartel skin (reddish gray, with crescent sitting on pole), while listed as being Klingon....

Also, I noticed that the MD5 is still using a different colored version of the original D5 Taldren skin, instead of the miniature D7 one like the others? And for note...  the E3Y is supposed to be the Bird of Prey from ST III, in theory, it's a Taldren added ship, and right now is on a skin from the pack that looks nothing like it
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 15, 2003, 03:28:56 am
Quote:


Not to be annjoying, but on a fed mission I was playing tonight, a C7V and D6DR were for some reason using what you mentioned as the Cartel skin (reddish gray, with crescent sitting on pole), while listed as being Klingon....

Also, I noticed that the MD5 is still using a different colored version of the original D5 Taldren skin, instead of the miniature D7 one like the others? And for note...  the E3Y is supposed to be the Bird of Prey from ST III, in theory, it's a Taldren added ship, and right now is on a skin from the pack that looks nothing like it




Most of the issues here have already been fixed. I spent a LOT of time after 3.0 was released, months ago on this. I swtiched the KD6 model back, that's the only difference. Back to green it goes.
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 16, 2003, 09:18:35 am
Now, I'm going to be clear on some matters that have gotten some people all worked up:

- I'm not going to include the I-CCV I commented on previously in any OP+ I release.
- I'm not going to include any R-KCRP I described that could be created, "based on SFB's K-C7S", on the SS2 chat.

These ships are to be included into D2 shiplists by the admins themselves.



However, I am going to do a limited-distribution test release with various changes of my own:
- SFB-based MIRV-equipped ships, mostly miraks
- less fighters on ISC carriers (like everyone), but more armour on the fighters themselves.


.. and the possible next ships: a few X1 ships I would create myself.
So far, the X1 ships have been the only exception I have applied to include non-official SFB material ships to my list. A few of these ships came from Captain's logs, which is usually a nono. Now, I am thinking we need a few more.

A list:

    - F-NCLX: The Federation needs a NCL-based X1 ship. It would have 30 warps, 4 photons, and nice shields. All phasers become phX.
    - H-TRX and H-HRX: The Hydrans also need a CL-sized X1 ship. These would also have 30 warps and improved shields. The TR has no fighters but has HBs. The HR has fighters, but only fusions. # of heavy weapons would be increased to 3 (from 2) on each.
    - I-NCAX/NCSX: The ISC needs a CA-sized X1 ship. Although the I-NCA are slow modifications of I-CL/CS, the X1 conversion would do a *perfect* CA-sized X1 ship.  


I-NCA explanation:
Historically, pockets of isolated ISC space, isolated but not yet conquered, have upgraded their CLs and CSs to "system cruisers". Slow with a movement cost of 1, a subdeck has been installed with 1 more heavy weapon, and 8 APRs. The ship has only 24 warps, but was about CA-sized.
A X1 conversion of these ships would make them about right. The warps would be increased to 32, and the ship would have enough power to move right.


I find there's a need for these ships, to fill in gaps in classes that other races currently have occupied. Also, the ISC needs a CA-cost xship.

 
Edit: I-CMX didn't cut it. Not big enough.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 16, 2003, 12:07:29 pm
I look forward to the next release.  Looks to be a good one, all things considered.


Does anyone know off-hand if specific pointers are being added for the various Fred BCHs or should I try and search through this thread to see if I can find the answer myself?


Thanks in advance...


 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Strafer on September 16, 2003, 12:40:09 pm
Idefix, if you're referring to the 4 new BCx's released Friday, I'd think odds are good.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 16, 2003, 05:32:12 pm
Precisely, Strafer!  How did you know!?  

I was a tad crestfallen when I went ot install them last night and found I was still stuck with the one model pointer.  


Went with the BCG Kirov.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Carrie on September 16, 2003, 06:38:28 pm
Also, since you have paint shop now, and were talking about doing skins specific to specific empires using a particular ship, do you have more blueish Hydranized Klingon cruiser skin for the H-D7H in the works by any chance? (or was it the D6H?) Or is this ship intended to fool people by seeming to be a Klingon ship?  
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 16, 2003, 11:33:23 pm
Quote:

Also, since you have paint shop now, and were talking about doing skins specific to specific empires using a particular ship, do you have more blueish Hydranized Klingon cruiser skin for the H-D7H in the works by any chance? (or was it the D6H?) Or is this ship intended to fool people by seeming to be a Klingon ship?  




I was the D7 Anarchist I believe and no it was not a weapon of espionage.  It was merely meant to be a weapon turned against it's creator sort of thing.  The original was a bit meaner than the current version with all of the waist phasers swapped out for P-G's......Ugly.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on September 18, 2003, 08:36:15 am
Just for laughs and giggles I use a D-10B by Atrahasis that has been Hydranized by me as the D7H.

Speaking of turning weapons against their masters; Atrahasis did some specs for the IKV Hood, a Fed cruiser captured during the General War. I have always thought it would be neat if the IKV Hood wasn?t a Constitution Refit Heavy Cruiser and made it a Ulysses Class (stock FBCH) using WickedZombie45?s recently released USS Babylon.

Both the ?IKV Hood? and Hydranized D-10 retextures are available at STMODDIRECTORY.

At any rate, the more I read this thread, the better it sounds. Now to get it released, LOL.

Qapla!

KF
 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 18, 2003, 08:49:40 am
yeah, it's due for testing...
.. as for the X1 'more ships' idea, I think I'll drop it for now. I'll let the ship creations stay in ADB's hands.

Currently, the installer is about 55 mb. I just need to work on a couple of more models.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 18, 2003, 08:53:28 am
btw, this is the anarchist currently in use in my 3.1:
   
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: jimmi7769 on September 18, 2003, 01:03:08 pm
That looks good......stupid Hydrans...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Carrie on September 18, 2003, 07:29:05 pm
Yay! I'll be looking forward to seeing 3.1 out soon then

I'm jealous of all of you who will be testing it as well, cause it sounds like its going to be even more awesome than 3.0 is

Thanks, Firesoul! And I like the new model for the Anarchist!

 
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 19, 2003, 06:21:04 am
Because of SS2, all the testers who have volunteered before are all.. busy. :P~
.. I am sitting on this and waiting for the campaign to be over.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on September 19, 2003, 08:55:30 am
Looks like a fun thing to try out.  Smaller but hopefully more survivable ISC fighter loadouts.  Hopefully survivable enough that a 3-pack can square off against 2 AMDs and still have a fighter left for recall...

And I'd love to see what the Mirak get for MIRVs...

Awaiting your next excellent release...
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on September 21, 2003, 04:14:22 pm
Is it ready yet? The wait should be almost over right?

Qapla!

KF
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 21, 2003, 05:54:25 pm
Quote:

Is it ready yet? The wait should be almost over right?
Qapla!
KF  




I played with it last night with a couple of pals. There are still some tweaks to do..
.. and I just KNOW that if somehow I release this during SS2, I will spoil some of their fun.
Title: Re: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0
Post by: FireSoul on September 25, 2003, 01:48:36 pm
This thread should be now closed.
.. please use the  3.1 corrections thread .


-- Luc