Post by: FireSoul on September 25, 2003, 01:47:46 pm
I decided to go ahead and just publish the darned thing without further ado, because I figure I have done enough testing already.
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 25, 2003, 05:20:48 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 01, 2003, 12:57:01 am
1) F-CDW is a commando version of the Ortega class war destroyer. The shiplist should point to the OP 3.1 fdw.mod not fhdw.mod.
2) F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin? That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me. Just opinion here.
3) F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model? Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist. I know this is a picky question.
4) F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
6) Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?
Well now, that should just about make the OP 3.1 shiplist perfect for the feds.
Firesoul........excellent work. I'm loving this. Next I'll review the Klinks and eventually the rest.
Post by: FireSoul on October 01, 2003, 09:33:28 am
Quote:
O.k. I've gone through the Fed portion of the 3.1 shiplist. Here are my questions:
1) F-CDW is a commando version of the Ortega class war destroyer. The shiplist should point to the OP 3.1 fdw.mod not fhdw.mod.
Right. Thanks.
Quote:
2) F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin? That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me. Just opinion here.
The single warp engine was removed, and a dual warp engine system with 12 warps each was installed, NCL-style.
Quote:
3) F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model? Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist. I know this is a picky question.
Good one.. Hmm.. I guess you're right. I'm goping to have to review that.
Quote:
4) F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.
Right. Thanks.
Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
Picky's what I need, here, when it comes to models.
Quote:
6) Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?
Just like the item 2 above, it was a conversion.
Quote:
Well now, that should just about make the OP 3.1 shiplist perfect for the feds.
Firesoul........excellent work. I'm loving this. Next I'll review the Klinks and eventually the rest.
Are you having fun, at least?
Post by: Corbomite on October 01, 2003, 10:12:57 am
Post by: FireSoul on October 01, 2003, 10:27:39 am
Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
*looks at SSD*
30 warp
4 Impulse
5 APR
Yes.
Edit addition: It's a D7C, converted. The "Emer Impulse" which is in the boom is an APR in the Romulan conversion.
-- Luc
Post by: Corbomite on October 01, 2003, 10:48:25 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 01, 2003, 12:49:57 pm
Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Post by: Corbomite on October 01, 2003, 01:13:19 pm
Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Then I guess you answered your own question.
Post by: FireSoul on October 01, 2003, 03:39:46 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Then I guess you answered your own question.
The KRC is based on the D7C. The KRCS is a PLaS refit of the KRC. It doesn't add power.
.. and no, I do not see a D7W variant in the shiplist, nor any SSDs.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 01, 2003, 03:54:06 pm
Quote:
The single warp engine was removed, and a dual warp engine system with 12 warps each was installed, NCL-style.
Ahh, then the model makes sense. I need to read up a bit on the x-ships. I've got all the latest SFB stuff, but it's been a while since I read the x-ship descriptions. I'll go through that stuff tonight to refresh my memory. I have been using one of the latest Master Ship Charts from the "un-official SFB website" as I go through your shiplist. The DGX was listed under the Saladin class so, without reading the description, I assumed it's appearance was similar. Not!!
Quote:
Are you having fun, at least?
Oh yes......I love this stuff. I tend to gravitate toward "complicated" hobbies.............except for my beer drinking hobby that is.
I reviewed the Kingon shiplist earlier today and it looks pretty good. I don't have my notes with me because I'm not currently at home so here's some things from memory (I'll post more details from my notes later):
1) The K-E3 and the K-G2 are essentially the same hull. Shouldn't the E3 use the same model as the G2? For me this is a tough one to answer based on the description I read for the E3. It said something like "The E3 is basically a smaller version of the E4". Does this mean the E4, E3, and G2 should all use the same model? I'm going to go ahead and make the E3 use the G2 model myself. This could just be left alone and let the fans just swap the model in the model folders, but I wanted to see your thoughts on this.
2) The captured Lyran ships (can't remember designations) both point ot the wrong model. The Panther CL points to the CA model instead of the CL model, and the Leopard DD points to the CL model instead of the DD model. Maybe I missed something funky here with the model paths, but I think there's something wrong with these.
I'll post more late tonight. Thanks.
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 01, 2003, 06:46:55 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Then I guess you answered your own question.
The KRC is based on the D7C. The KRCS is a PLaS refit of the KRC. It doesn't add power.
.. and no, I do not see a D7W variant in the shiplist, nor any SSDs.
Agreed. I never knew the KRCS had 41 power in the stock list. I know it's wrong, I just didn't know it.
As for a KRW....hmmm, sounds interesting.....
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on October 02, 2003, 01:34:07 pm
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
KF
Post by: FireSoul on October 02, 2003, 01:49:16 pm
Quote:
Stupid question time:
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
KF
What do you mean? I don't follow what you're asking about.
Post by: DH123 on October 02, 2003, 03:02:37 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Then I guess you answered your own question.
The KRC is based on the D7C. The KRCS is a PLaS refit of the KRC. It doesn't add power.
.. and no, I do not see a D7W variant in the shiplist, nor any SSDs.
Agreed. I never knew the KRCS had 41 power in the stock list. I know it's wrong, I just didn't know it.
As for a KRW....hmmm, sounds interesting.....
Agreed.
Post by: FireSoul on October 02, 2003, 03:02:40 pm
Quote:
Stupid question time:
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
In my own installed OP dir, these files are still present.
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on October 03, 2003, 03:05:02 pm
NON-OP PLUS Shiplist questions:
LDR/Camboro:
They simply can?t go into Tiger Heart and Camboro slots correct?
Mirror Universe Terran Empire Imperial ships:
Should they simply be a copy of the Federation shiplist renamed to a pirate cartel designation? E. g., Syndicate ?S-FBCH?
I applaud your work but I'm not a big TOS/SFB model fan. Your FDNG model I have as part of my Imperials that includes nearly ALL the kitbashes of P81's USS EXPLORER... I figure the Imperials are more war oriented and have more uniform ship designs.
Qapla!
KF
Post by: IndyShark on October 03, 2003, 06:03:04 pm
Post by: Strafer on October 03, 2003, 06:11:30 pm
Post by: FireSoul on October 03, 2003, 07:47:32 pm
Quote:
LDR/Camboro:
They simply can?t go into Tiger Heart and Camboro slots correct?
The problem is in the engine doubling. Viewing a ship while buying it would also be broken if looking for a ship that didn't originate from that race. ie: lyran ships have to be in the lyran race to show up properly everywhere.
Quote:
Mirror Universe Terran Empire Imperial ships:
Should they simply be a copy of the Federation shiplist renamed to a pirate cartel designation? E. g., Syndicate ?S-FBCH?
Same as above: broken engine doubling (which could be turned off) and minor vieing problems.
Quote:
I applaud your work but I'm not a big TOS/SFB model fan. Your FDNG model I have as part of my Imperials that includes nearly ALL the kitbashes of P81's USS EXPLORER... I figure the Imperials are more war oriented and have more uniform ship designs.
To each his own, remember that.
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on October 04, 2003, 05:17:50 am
Qapla!
KF
Post by: Atrahasis on October 04, 2003, 01:41:08 pm
Quote:
2) F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin? That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me. Just opinion here.
The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.
Quote:
3) F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model? Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist. I know this is a picky question.
That depends....according to some sources the TMP "makoeover" started as soon as 2265.
Quote:
4) F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.
No Burke class could possibly be worthy to recieve an X-refit because the style and tech for that class are more than 60 years old by the year 2300. That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.
Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.
Quote:
6) Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?
The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well, which was the Hermes class. The F-SC+ could be any any newer scout class, possibly and probably TMP style.
Post by: Atrahasis on October 04, 2003, 01:43:26 pm
Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
*looks at SSD*
30 warp
4 Impulse
5 APR
Yes.
Edit addition: It's a D7C, converted. The "Emer Impulse" which is in the boom is an APR in the Romulan conversion.
-- Luc
You might want to refer to how the ship specs were for SFC1, because between SFC1 and SFC2, many ships were castrated in engine power and weapons, for dubious reasons. The KRCS is probably one of them, I know for a fact that the KCR and the C-7 and the Fed BC's were among the castrated.
Post by: FireSoul on October 04, 2003, 02:55:12 pm
Quote:Quote:
2) F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin? That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me. Just opinion here.
The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.Quote:
3) F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model? Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist. I know this is a picky question.
That depends....according to some sources the TMP "makoeover" started as soon as 2265.Quote:
4) F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.
No Burke class could possibly be worthy to recieve an X-refit because the style and tech for that class are more than 60 years old by the year 2300. That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.Quote:
6) Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?
The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well, which was the Hermes class. The F-SC+ could be any any newer scout class, possibly and probably TMP style.
Would you mind giving me suggestions for which models to use? (and, I know it's a pain... , where I can find these models..)
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 04, 2003, 08:49:21 pm
Quote:
The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.
I was only referring to SFB references since Firesoul said that his shiplist was adding the missing stuff from SFB. According to SFB the F-DD+ is still considered a Saladin class. I realize other publications refer to other non-Saladin destroyers, but I think in this case Firesoul is focusing on the SFB master ship chart which lists the F-DD+ under the Saldin class.
In the case of the F-DGX Firesoul used an appropriate model because according to the SFB ship description the single engine was removed and replaced with two engines. The picture in the book also confirms this.
Quote:
That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.
Again, according to the SFB manual the later versions of the Burke class are still considered Burke classes.
Quote:
This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.
Yes you are absolutely correct. The FLG is listed under the Burke class. My bad.
Quote:
The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well
Same issue as above. If we are just using SFB, the F-SC+ is still based on the Saladin. It's definate listed this way in the Master ship chart.
Post by: Atrahasis on October 05, 2003, 04:19:39 am
Post by: Atrahasis on October 05, 2003, 04:25:16 am
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on October 05, 2003, 01:18:28 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 05, 2003, 01:31:42 pm
I don't want to speak for Firesoul, but I think he is trying to blend both TOS and TMP Trek with SFB stats. For example, the F-CA came out in SFB year Y130 which would translate to year 2230 and would use the TOS CA model. The F-CA+ shows an SFB year of Y165 which would use the Enterprise class TMP model. This make sense to me. I think this convention works with the other ship classes and races too.
I like the way Firesoul is doing it. He's trying to stick to SFB, but also trying to blend in real trek as best he can.
Converting SFB Y-years to real trek years is a "nebulous" process which requires some compromises here and there, but I think the finished OP+ product does a good job.
Don Miller's SFB website also has a good timeline interpretation which relates technology eras from Trek to SFB. Here it is: http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/rules/rule.txt Scroll down a few pages to get to the timeline. I like the way this SFB to Trek translation was done.
Post by: FireSoul on October 05, 2003, 02:40:51 pm
Quote:
I have always considered SFB to be all the Kirk era stuff, not just TOS show. Even though SFB is supposedly TOS only, I think we can unofficially consider it to include TMP stuff too.
I don't want to speak for Firesoul, but I think he is trying to blend both TOS and TMP Trek with SFB stats. For example, the F-CA came out in SFB year Y130 which would translate to year 2230 and would use the TOS CA model. The F-CA+ shows an SFB year of Y165 which would use the Enterprise class TMP model. This make sense to me. I think this convention works with the other ship classes and races too.
I like the way Firesoul is doing it. He's trying to stick to SFB, but also trying to blend in real trek as best he can.
Converting SFB Y-years to real trek years is a "nebulous" process which requires some compromises here and there, but I think the finished OP+ product does a good job.
Don Miller's SFB website also has a good timeline interpretation which relates technology eras from Trek to SFB. Here it is: http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/rules/rule.txt Scroll down a few pages to get to the timeline. I like the way this SFB to Trek translation was done.
You understand the idea behind the work. I wanted to preserve the TMP look and feel of thegame. It seemed to me that the + refit seemed like a perfect excuse to 'upgrade' ships to TMP versions. In other words, all Fed ships in existance previously to the + refit should be in the TOS style, which is pretty much what I've done so far.
Now, it's obvious that I still have some touch-ups to do, such as making sure the F-FLGs are using the Burke class models. However, the mod progress nearer still to what I imagined to be a completed work.
Hm. Question: does anyone know where to find a TMP version of the Texas Class (Old) Light Cruiser? They also recieve a + refit, so I wonder if it would recieve a TMP-era refit.
Post by: Karnak on October 05, 2003, 07:25:52 pm
For the first time ever there is going to be an active effort to integrate the 3.1 shiplist with the EEK missions so that they achieve maximum results. Basically, I am going to take the OP v3.1 shiplist and re-classify ships into pre-defined slots that will pool ships into restricted and non-restricted categories. The EEK missions are already constructed to observed such a ship classifying architecture so in order for a dyna to get maximum results out of the missions, the shiplist has to be configured properly. All present and future EEK missions will be using the CnC architecture as a basis for mission development.
The architecture is detailed in the ISC Inv. CnC rules along with a recommended shipyard cost chart:
CnC Architecture used by EEK missions
You will notice that the restricted ship classes of BATTLESHIP, DREADNOUGHT, CARRIER and SPECIAL are prohibitively costed out (ie. from 10 times to 40 times the cost of a Heavy Cruiser). Or, the dyna can use the FM-restriction system used in SG3 and SS2 to just manually assigned the ships and take them out of the shipyard completely. These restricted ship classes also are never used in EEK for enemy AI generation so it's important that only ships meant to be restricted are placed in these class types.
I already have an OP v31 converted shiplist ready to release with the next EEK mission pack but I would first like to vet it in an upcoming project before making it available to all.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 05, 2003, 08:47:43 pm
Quote:
does anyone know where to find a TMP version of the Texas Class (Old) Light Cruiser? They also recieve a + refit, so I wonder if it would recieve a TMP-era refit.
Tough question. Here's my ideas:
I have no problem with all of these ships keeping the TOS look (even the CL+).
In my opinion, since these ships are over 100 years old and were already highly upgraded just to make them warp capable and get shields, I doubt starfleet would have upgraded the engines on these ships to the point that they took on a TMP look. I think a few of them could have been upgraded that far as prototypes, but my opinion is that it makes little sense to upgrade the Texas class so extensively on top of the previous massive upgrades considering they were developing the NCL about the same time.
Lastly, since these ships are so old, keeping the TOS look gives them that old ship look and feel.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 06, 2003, 12:58:26 am
I have reviewed Romulan, Lyrans, and Gorn in shiplist. Here are discrepancies I think I found:
Romulans:
I found no "real" problems with shiplist. My only comments are about models.
1) The Centurian PF is related to the old series Eagle class ships, or at least follows their design lineage. It should use the Feral Yards model currently linked by the Deceurion INT in my opinion. I would then use the Taldren Romulan PF model for the Decurion. The Starhawk is fine with the Feral yards Starhawk model. Just opinion here.
2) Man I wish there were more Romulan Models out there. I searched and searched to no avail. I wish there were a better model for the Demonhawk, Freight Eagle, KRT, Vul, Skyhawk, Seahawk, and Sabrehawk. The Hawk series is really the delema. I love the Feral yards models used down to the Sparrowhawk, unfortunately the Feral Yards stopped there. Below that, all the models available for the Skyhawk and Seahawk are out of character with the Feral yards based models. If I use the Fleetdock 13 SFB models for the Skyhawk etc. I really need to use them all and should replace the Feral models. Dunno?
Lyrans:
1) Should the L-DND Mountain Lion DD use the LFF model?
2) L-FLG and varients should be a Cheetah FF model.
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.
Gorn:
1) G-FCR and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model.
2) G-FLG and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model. Check all race FLG's, I bet many are wrong models!! There's a pattern here.
3) G-SC and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model.
4) G-SR and varients should use Megalosaurus class CL model.
O.K. that's enough abuse for tonight.
Post by: FireSoul on October 06, 2003, 03:54:05 pm
Quote:
Just a friendly FYI.
For the first time ever there is going to be an active effort to integrate the 3.1 shiplist with the EEK missions so that they achieve maximum results. Basically, I am going to take the OP v3.1 shiplist and re-classify ships into pre-defined slots that will pool ships into restricted and non-restricted categories. The EEK missions are already constructed to observed such a ship classifying architecture so in order for a dyna to get maximum results out of the missions, the shiplist has to be configured properly. All present and future EEK missions will be using the CnC architecture as a basis for mission development.
The architecture is detailed in the ISC Inv. CnC rules along with a recommended shipyard cost chart:
CnC Architecture used by EEK missions
You will notice that the restricted ship classes of BATTLESHIP, DREADNOUGHT, CARRIER and SPECIAL are prohibitively costed out (ie. from 10 times to 40 times the cost of a Heavy Cruiser). Or, the dyna can use the FM-restriction system used in SG3 and SS2 to just manually assigned the ships and take them out of the shipyard completely. These restricted ship classes also are never used in EEK for enemy AI generation so it's important that only ships meant to be restricted are placed in these class types.
I already have an OP v31 converted shiplist ready to release with the next EEK mission pack but I would first like to vet it in an upcoming project before making it available to all.
Good idea...
.. for a D2-based shiplist.
Post by: FireSoul on October 06, 2003, 04:27:03 pm
Quote:
O.K. it's 1:30 in the morning.....do I love this game or what?
I have reviewed Romulan, Lyrans, and Gorn in shiplist. Here are discrepancies I think I found:
Romulans:
I found no "real" problems with shiplist. My only comments are about models.
1) The Centurian PF is related to the old series Eagle class ships, or at least follows their design lineage. It should use the Feral Yards model currently linked by the Deceurion INT in my opinion. I would then use the Taldren Romulan PF model for the Decurion. The Starhawk is fine with the Feral yards Starhawk model. Just opinion here.
I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.
Quote:
2) Man I wish there were more Romulan Models out there. I searched and searched to no avail. I wish there were a better model for the Demonhawk, Freight Eagle, KRT, Vul, Skyhawk, Seahawk, and Sabrehawk. The Hawk series is really the delema. I love the Feral yards models used down to the Sparrowhawk, unfortunately the Feral Yards stopped there. Below that, all the models available for the Skyhawk and Seahawk are out of character with the Feral yards based models. If I use the Fleetdock 13 SFB models for the Skyhawk etc. I really need to use them all and should replace the Feral models. Dunno?
I do what I can.. but the fleetdock 13 models kinda makes the models look... klunky.
Quote:
Lyrans:
1) Should the L-DND Mountain Lion DD use the LFF model?
2) L-FLG and varients should be a Cheetah FF model.
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.
1- It actually deserves its own model. It was supposed to be the middle portion of a Lyran DN Catamaran. Unfortunately, the FeralYards model for the LDN makes the middle part way bigger than it should be (even tho it looks cool). I don't know what to do there.
2- Probably all FLGs need to be checked.
3- It's a modified DD, not a DW.
4- SCX is DD-based, not DW based.
5- see #4.
Quote:
Gorn:
1) G-FCR and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model.
2) G-FLG and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model. Check all race FLG's, I bet many are wrong models!! There's a pattern here.
3) G-SC and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model.
4) G-SR and varients should use Megalosaurus class CL model.
I'll check these later on..
Quote:
O.K. that's enough abuse for tonight.
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on October 06, 2003, 10:01:30 pm
There are 13 Klingon Academy style Tholian models (higher poly than the GAW 'mini-mod' just released) and a full set of TMP Andromedans based on P81's TMP Imposer and Cobra all at SFU....
Please advise.
KF
Post by: FireSoul on October 06, 2003, 10:27:34 pm
Quote:
OK, I'll ask: "Are you now going to add Tholians and Andromedans to the OP+ shiplist?" If so, I will love to have a single uniform shiplist rather than patching different parts to the OP+ one.
There are 13 Klingon Academy style Tholian models (higher poly than the GAW 'mini-mod' just released) and a full set of TMP Andromedans based on P81's TMP Imposer and Cobra all at SFU....
Please advise.
KF
No.
Post by: CptCastrin on October 06, 2003, 11:35:35 pm
I've seen this happen before when using ShipEdit. I don't know if you used that but I figured you should know.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 07, 2003, 12:07:34 am
Quote:
I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.
I like this idea.
Quote:
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
Quote:
3- It's a modified DD, not a DW.
Nope. I doublechecked. The WYN pocket "BB" (that's bee bee) is a modified Lyran DD. The WYN pocket "BC" (that's bee see) is based on the Lyran DW.
Quote:
4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.
Quote:
4- SCX is DD-based, not DW based.
5- see #4.
Nope again. Doublechecked again. The L-SCX and L-DSCX are both based on Lyran War Destroyer. The L-SC is the one based on the DD.
Isn't this fun.
Oh and don't forget those klingon "captured" Lyrans I mentioned earlier in the thread.
On to the ISC.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 07, 2003, 12:48:15 am
Of course it's the I-FLG model link. Should be ISC DD model, not ISC FF. Same with I-FLGW.
As you can see I'm mostly reviewing model links in the shiplist right now. Other issues like hardpoints will have to wait until I have more time.
Post by: FireSoul on October 07, 2003, 01:08:16 am
Quote:
FS your fighter list has duplicate columns.
I've seen this happen before when using ShipEdit. I don't know if you used that but I figured you should know.
Crap. Thanks.
Post by: FireSoul on October 07, 2003, 01:09:42 am
Quote:
Quote:
I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.
I like this idea.
Quote:
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
Quote:
3- It's a modified DD, not a DW.
Nope. I doublechecked. The WYN pocket "BB" (that's bee bee) is a modified Lyran DD. The WYN pocket "BC" (that's bee see) is based on the Lyran DW.Quote:
4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.Quote:
4- SCX is DD-based, not DW based.
5- see #4.
Nope again. Doublechecked again. The L-SCX and L-DSCX are both based on Lyran War Destroyer. The L-SC is the one based on the DD.
Isn't this fun.
Oh and don't forget those klingon "captured" Lyrans I mentioned earlier in the thread.
On to the ISC.
I'm going to have to check the SSDs. They always do the final ruling.
Post by: GT-Keravnos on October 07, 2003, 09:49:35 am
Models galore, goodness all around.
Just one question. Why did you change the Hydran fighters? The stock ones (model wise) were one of the prettier models I have ever seen.
Just thought I would mention that. If you aren't going to change them perhaps you should make them a little smaller? They look kinda huge right now. (when compared to the other fighters)
Also, is there ANY way you can get HYENA in the game?
Keep up the FABULOUS work! I am loving what I am seeing!
Post by: GT-Keravnos on October 07, 2003, 09:55:44 am
Even as an AI enemy.
Also, are you thinking of tackleing Early years?
Andro CA against 5 MONS WITH hornet 3's... Poor Hydrans.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on October 07, 2003, 04:11:13 pm
Quote:
2) Man I wish there were more Romulan Models out there. I searched and searched to no avail. I wish there were a better model for the Demonhawk, Freight Eagle, KRT, Vul, Skyhawk, Seahawk, and Sabrehawk. The Hawk series is really the delema. I love the Feral yards models used down to the Sparrowhawk, unfortunately the Feral Yards stopped there. Below that, all the models available for the Skyhawk and Seahawk are out of character with the Feral yards based models. If I use the Fleetdock 13 SFB models for the Skyhawk etc. I really need to use them all and should replace the Feral models. Dunno?
I do what I can.. but the fleetdock 13 models kinda makes the models look... klunky.
Firesoul, have you considered using a FASA model? There's a model out there that would work nicely IMO; I can't remember what it's called but it fits the description of the skyhawk nicely. The only thing is that it's a cruiser size model - but model size takes care of that.
The other thing is there a reason you didn't use Atra's stormbird for the RKCA model?
Post by: Fahrenheit on October 07, 2003, 06:13:48 pm
Quote:
You might want to refer to how the ship specs were for SFC1, because between SFC1 and SFC2, many ships were castrated in engine power and weapons, for dubious reasons. The KRCS is probably one of them, I know for a fact that the KCR and the C-7 and the Fed BC's were among the castrated.
They were "castrated" in the sense that they lost some Ph-3s and APR. The stuff they lost was artificially added to the ships in question to make up for the fact that SFC1 did not have ADDs. So, for each ADD rack a ship was supposed to have, it got one Ph-3 and half an apr, rounded up, to power the ph-3 (since the ADD didn't use power).
With the introduction of ADD racks in SFC2, the weapons and power that shouldn't have been there in the first place were removed and the ADDs the ship was supposed to have were added.
F°
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 10, 2003, 11:39:00 pm
Reviewed Mirakzinti shiplist. Only real problem noted is again the FLG has wrong model link.
Hydrans also complete:
1) Is the Caravan Tug supposed to use the Taldren HCA model?
I noted that you used the Feral Yards Hydran models mostly. I saw that from the Monarch class BB on down to the Cheyenne NCA you used "all" Feral Yards models for these, but for the Mongol class CM, Horseman class CL, Lancer class DD, and Hunter class FF there is a mixture of Feral Yards and Taldren models used.
What is surprising is that these models are mixed "within the same hull class"!! For example the Mongol class uses the Taldren HCL.mod model. Some varients of this class like the Apache and Commanche also use the Taldren model (which is understandable) but then the varients Cossack medium carrier and Tar Tar medium cruiser use Feral Yards models that don't match the Taldren model.
My question is: What is the thinking here? I'm trying to figure out the thought pattern you used for deciding what model to use for each ship? Do the models create distinction between Hellbore and Fusion varients? What's the pattern to the Hydran model selection?
Post by: FireSoul on October 11, 2003, 12:51:25 am
Quote:
Firesoul,
Reviewed Mirakzinti shiplist. Only real problem noted is again the FLG has wrong model link.
Hydrans also complete:
1) Is the Caravan Tug supposed to use the Taldren HCA model?
I noted that you used the Feral Yards Hydran models mostly. I saw that from the Monarch class BB on down to the Cheyenne NCA you used "all" Feral Yards models for these, but for the Mongol class CM, Horseman class CL, Lancer class DD, and Hunter class FF there is a mixture of Feral Yards and Taldren models used.
What is surprising is that these models are mixed "within the same hull class"!! For example the Mongol class uses the Taldren HCL.mod model. Some varients of this class like the Apache and Commanche also use the Taldren model (which is understandable) but then the varients Cossack medium carrier and Tar Tar medium cruiser use Feral Yards models that don't match the Taldren model.
My question is: What is the thinking here? I'm trying to figure out the thought pattern you used for deciding what model to use for each ship? Do the models create distinction between Hellbore and Fusion varients? What's the pattern to the Hydran model selection?
Dunno. I have nothing against the Taldren Hydran models. I guess I was just being imaginative.
Post by: TarMinyatur on October 21, 2003, 01:10:05 am
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Post by: Lieutenant_Q on October 21, 2003, 01:32:26 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 21, 2003, 08:41:16 am
Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
No, they're LS/RS all right. The wing arcs would be nice but thats a design feature of the D class hulls. The F/E class are way different designs.
Post by: TarMinyatur on October 21, 2003, 06:30:58 pm
Post by: Atrahasis on October 22, 2003, 12:43:43 am
Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
No, they're LS/RS all right. The wing arcs would be nice but thats a design feature of the D class hulls. The F/E class are way different designs.
If any Connie-style Fed ship has LS and RS arcs instead of those split arcs, then you can count on it looking like the Battlecruiser with the lowered warp engines.
Post by: Corbomite on October 22, 2003, 12:08:55 pm
Changes From
F-BCG to F-BCV -
BPV Difference = 33
+8 Fighters
+15 Crew
+1 Tractor
-2 Stock Shuttles
-3 Max Shuttles
K-C7 to K-C7V-
BPV Difference = 38
+8 Fighters
+16 Crew
-2 Stock Shuttles
H-OV to H-OS-
BPV Difference = 29
+6 Fighters
+19 Crew
-2 Stock Shuttles
-1 Max Shuttle
I-CCZ to I-BCV-
BPV Difference = 34
+8 Fighters
+6 Crew
-4 Marines
-8 Max Marines
-4 Power
-1 Stock Shuttle
-2 Max Shuttles
Z-BCH to Z-BCV-
BPV Difference = 38
+8 Fighters
+6 Crew
-1 Max Shuttle
So the Hydrans pay a little less because they get less added and a good bit taken away. The Feds and Klings seem on par as usual. Now the Mirak are paying as much as the Klings and getting 10 less crew and the permanant loss of one shuttle while the Klings only miss out on the 2 freebie shuttles for the same cost. The ISC are just disgusting and I think speak for themselves. That ship is a travesty. The heavier fighters are a slight push, but the BCV cost 263 before FS beefed up the fighters. Paying 34 points to have the hull and crew stripped seems like a sorry trade for 8 fighters.
Post by: Corbomite on October 23, 2003, 08:21:32 am
Post by: Mog on October 23, 2003, 08:50:36 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 23, 2003, 08:51:51 am
Quote:
BUMP because I'd really like this explained.
I'll explain it for you Corbo.
This is an SFB shiplist and thats how it is in SFB. IF you want a better answer than that you'll probably have to go to ADB's forum and ask Steve Cole. He answers posts over there.
Post by: Corbomite on October 23, 2003, 09:00:23 am
Quote:Quote:
BUMP because I'd really like this explained.
I'll explain it for you Corbo.
This is an SFB shiplist and thats how it is in SFB. IF you want a better answer than that you'll probably have to go to ADB's forum and ask Steve Cole. He answers posts over there.
Most of those ships are the Taldren ships. I was asking within the context of SFC. If the answer is a SFB one then I already know the answer and it, of course, does not apply here.
Post by: 762 on October 23, 2003, 09:18:12 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 23, 2003, 09:25:37 am
And yes I know this isn't SFB and it doesn't apply here. I'm just a historian trying the give you some information. I'm not saying it's right or it should be this way in sfc cause its like that in sfb. I'm just passing along information for those that may not know it. And no I don't want everything to be just like sfb.
Post by: Corbomite on October 23, 2003, 09:34:37 am
Quote:
Actually for a truer SFB answer I think you have to go to the text mentioning that the Star Cruiser matches up well against other races BCH's that'd be the CAZ and not the CCZ. the CAZ has 40 power right?? Maybe thats the reason the BCV only has 40 power. It's based off of the CA and not the CC which in SFB was considered a pocket DN
And yes I know this isn't SFB and it doesn't apply here. I'm just a historian trying the give you some information. I'm not saying it's right or it should be this way in sfc cause its like that in sfb. I'm just passing along information for those that may not know it. And no I don't want everything to be just like sfb.
That wouldn't explain the Mirak. Look I know the SFB answer, but combat effectiveness just doesn't translate all that well in SFC because many of the support mechanisms in SFB just are not there. If that is the answer then so be it, but it still does not make it relevant to SFC as you pointed out. I am begining to see the wisdom in many of Taldren's decisions concerning transfers of problematic races to SFC. It makes me very curious to see what an actual SFC Andromedan would have been like.
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 23, 2003, 10:25:58 am
Quote:Quote:
Actually for a truer SFB answer I think you have to go to the text mentioning that the Star Cruiser matches up well against other races BCH's that'd be the CAZ and not the CCZ. the CAZ has 40 power right?? Maybe thats the reason the BCV only has 40 power. It's based off of the CA and not the CC which in SFB was considered a pocket DN
And yes I know this isn't SFB and it doesn't apply here. I'm just a historian trying the give you some information. I'm not saying it's right or it should be this way in sfc cause its like that in sfb. I'm just passing along information for those that may not know it. And no I don't want everything to be just like sfb.
That wouldn't explain the Mirak. Look I know the SFB answer, but combat effectiveness just doesn't translate all that well in SFC because many of the support mechanisms in SFB just are not there. If that is the answer then so be it, but it still does not make it relevant to SFC as you pointed out. I am begining to see the wisdom in many of Taldren's decisions concerning transfers of problematic races to SFC. It makes me very curious to see what an actual SFC Andromedan would have been like.
You are correct, and this is why a pure SFB list is a little imbalanced. Somthing to keep in mind with the pure SFB approach is that SFB was created with a historacl perspective in mind. Kzinti didn't fight romulans that much and Lyrans didn't see too many Gorns. So a lot of the east vs west problems crop up more often in SFC play since we don't normally play the historical matchups anymore. And while the ISC did fight everyone they fought against a bunch of war worn fleets that really weren't up to the task.
And Yeah, the taldren Andys would have been interesting along with the Tholians. Oh well.
Post by: Strafer on November 01, 2003, 03:15:59 pm
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 03:08:27 pm
I could not find the problem mentioned in the following. I think Hypergol made an error or something.
Quote:
2) The captured Lyran ships (can't remember designations) both point ot the wrong model. The Panther CL points to the CA model instead of the CL model, and the Leopard DD points to the CL model instead of the DD model. Maybe I missed something funky here with the model paths, but I think there's something wrong with these.
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 03:54:15 pm
Quote:
3.1 is fabulous.
Models galore, goodness all around.
Just one question. Why did you change the Hydran fighters? The stock ones (model wise) were one of the prettier models I have ever seen.
Just thought I would mention that. If you aren't going to change them perhaps you should make them a little smaller? They look kinda huge right now. (when compared to the other fighters)
Also, is there ANY way you can get HYENA in the game?
Keep up the FABULOUS work! I am loving what I am seeing!
Ok. I shrunk the new Hydran fighter model. No biggie.
.. what's HYENA?
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 04:44:21 pm
Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 04:55:46 pm
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on November 04, 2003, 10:45:58 pm
Quote:
Ok. Up to date with fixes up to now. That includes the Z-DWDm and Z-CCXm errors reported in the D2 forum. Maverick needs to learn that it's OK to post in the General Forum.
Fixed as in ready for 3.2 or fixed as in d/l the 3.1 pack again?
Please advise.
KF
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 11:31:55 pm
Quote:Quote:
Ok. Up to date with fixes up to now. That includes the Z-DWDm and Z-CCXm errors reported in the D2 forum. Maverick needs to learn that it's OK to post in the General Forum.
Fixed as in ready for 3.2 or fixed as in d/l the 3.1 pack again?
Please advise.
KF
For next version. 3.1 will remain 3.1..
Post by: Fluf on November 04, 2003, 11:51:05 pm
FS, I would still look at the SCS and make changes to it. It is SFB.
Also the DWDm you are fixing needed another 10 BPV bump as it was only 96BPV vs the 86 BPV of the DWD.
Also YFA on Z-DF+m needs pushed back to year 9 not 7, as per your comments that MIrv did not come out until 2272.
Also found Z-WDF or one of those smalller Wyn firgates didnt have any probes. Please check these ships.
Thanks for the work Firesoul. Great job.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on November 05, 2003, 12:00:54 am
Quote:
I could not find the problem mentioned in the following. I think Hypergol made an error or something.
It is possible I made an error.
The ships are K-LCL and K-LDD in the klingon section of the shiplist.
The K-LCL is pointing to the Lyan CA model, should be the Lyran Panther CL model.
The K-LDD is pointing to the Lyan CL model, should be a Lyran Leopard DD model.
These Lyran ships are the ones in the Klingon ship section. These are Lyran ships captured and used by the Klingons. Just making sure you realized what ships I was talking about.
I'll double check my findings.
Post by: FireSoul on November 05, 2003, 07:47:46 am
Quote:
Quote:
I could not find the problem mentioned in the following. I think Hypergol made an error or something.
It is possible I made an error.
The ships are K-LCL and K-LDD in the klingon section of the shiplist.
The K-LCL is pointing to the Lyan CA model, should be the Lyran Panther CL model.
The K-LDD is pointing to the Lyan CL model, should be a Lyran Leopard DD model.
These Lyran ships are the ones in the Klingon ship section. These are Lyran ships captured and used by the Klingons. Just making sure you realized what ships I was talking about.
I'll double check my findings.
Ah yes, the leftovers from SFC1... Thanks.
Post by: Bonk on November 24, 2003, 06:39:09 pm
Quote:
Copyrights
STAR TREK: Starfleet Command (R) Volume II - Orion Pirates Software (C) 2001 Interplay Entertainment Corp. All Rights Reserved. TM, (R), and (C) 2001 Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK (R) and related elements are trademarks of Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved. Some elements are based upon the board games created by Armadillo Design Bureau (C) 1977-2001. Taldren and the Taldren logo are trademarks of Taldren Inc. Exclusively licensed and distributed by Interplay Entertainment Corp. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners.
What's wrong with this picture? (From the license agreement page of the installer...)
Ok I know it's not an actual shiplist issue but I think it is worth correcting considering it was originally Taldren/Interplay's error (from the back of the CD case I assume?) and the motto of the OP+ shiplist: "Let's add what's missing from SFB...".
Just in case you weren't sure: Armadillos vs Amarillo Design Bureau ...
Sorry to 'nit-pick' but this one drives me nuts!
Post by: FireSoul on November 24, 2003, 07:22:02 pm
Post by: Rogue on November 24, 2003, 08:02:13 pm
Both specifications were introduced at the same time.
Post by: FireSoul on November 24, 2003, 08:43:40 pm
Next, some of those Snipes are Taldren inventions (appeared in stock shiplist and are not SFB-complient). Let's see.
R-SNA: Accurate
R-SNAR: Accurate, refitted SNA
R-SNB: Taldren version. 2 warps missing.
R-SNBB: My added real SNB.
R-SNBP: Some unknown invented ship with lotsa warp, and a missing PLaG.
R-SNE: Escort ship found in R4, ok.
R-SNP: Unknown and probably invented Police variant. 3 warps each side.
Analisys: leaving in the SNP won't do any harm, since it's got a single PLaG. However, the SNB should be replaced by the SNBB, but the introduction date is much later. The SNBP doesn't fit in: too much warp.
Post by: Rogue on November 24, 2003, 09:45:54 pm
Post by: FireSoul on November 24, 2003, 10:43:17 pm
.. in SFB, even if you just have a poor little impulse engine, you can do things called impulse TAC and such. A ship can turn and maneuver pretty fast, despite the fact its maximum speed is 1. Since SFC is a Real-time game, a speed 1 ship would not only be too slow to use, it also loses all and any advantages it may have had before.
ALSO..
These ships, The WB+ and the VUL+, they all have 1 thing in common: Plasma Rs. In fact, even in SFB, the PLaR can't be overloaded on the WB+ without a special trick with the batteries. This can't be done in SFC, so you can guess why it's so useful to have a bit more power to these ships. Of course, they also cost a bt more BPV for it.
This is why I would have to say these ships are made in "Taldren's style", and I want to preserve that style.
ie: The VUL+ is my addition (from module Y1), but is put together in a similar way to the WB+.
besides..
WB+ -> WE -> KE
VUL+ -> WVL --> KVL
Post by: Patchfur on November 25, 2003, 11:55:08 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on November 25, 2003, 12:21:09 pm
Quote:
First, I'd like to say that the WE and WB+ (.. and VUL+..) have been GIVEN warps, since they are not supposed to have any at ALL. Comparing them with anything else won't really apply here.
Next, some of those Snipes are Taldren inventions (appeared in stock shiplist and are not SFB-complient). Let's see.
R-SNA: Accurate
R-SNAR: Accurate, refitted SNA
R-SNB: Taldren version. 2 warps missing.
R-SNBB: My added real SNB.
R-SNBP: Some unknown invented ship with lotsa warp, and a missing PLaG.
R-SNE: Escort ship found in R4, ok.
R-SNP: Unknown and probably invented Police variant. 3 warps each side.
Analisys: leaving in the SNP won't do any harm, since it's got a single PLaG. However, the SNB should be replaced by the SNBB, but the introduction date is much later. The SNBP doesn't fit in: too much warp.
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Post by: FireSoul on November 25, 2003, 12:52:06 pm
Quote:
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Which module?
Post by: Rogue on November 25, 2003, 04:08:51 pm
On a side note I corrected the specs on the Snipe and will play it like you have shown. Thanks for the information FS.
Post by: jimmi7769 on November 25, 2003, 09:43:01 pm
Quote:Quote:
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Which module?
From here it looks like it's rule 42a in Advanced Missions
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc/R04-rom.html
Post by: FireSoul on November 26, 2003, 08:56:17 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Which module?
From here it looks like it's rule 42a in Advanced Missions
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc/R04-rom.html
That's the Rule number. If I knew which module it was it, I could then look for it with this rule number.
Post by: The Postman on November 26, 2003, 10:11:13 pm
|F-MON|USS Saracen
||USS Erebus
||USS Terror
||USS Marshall Soult
||USS Roberts
||USS Abercrombie
|F-MONS|USS Saracen
||USS Erebus
||USS Terror
||USS Marshall Soult
||USS Roberts
||USS Abercrombie
|F-MONV|USS Saracen
||USS Erebus
||USS Terror
||USS Marshall Soult
||USS Roberts
||USS Abercrombie
All of these names are based upon actual monitors in the British Navy. Besides Monitor already exists in the list as "1713 Monitor"
Post by: Rod O'neal on November 26, 2003, 10:27:45 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Which module?
From here it looks like it's rule 42a in Advanced Missions
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc/R04-rom.html
That's the Rule number. If I knew which module it was it, I could then look for it with this rule number.
Advanced Missions. The rule simply states that the SNP is the police variant of the SNA. Same ship without the cloak. Uses the SNA SSD.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on November 27, 2003, 12:36:32 am
I was playing a convoy raid mission and the enemy was protecting 4 or 5 slavers.......but they just were'nt there?
Post by: Strafer on November 27, 2003, 01:59:15 am
Post by: TarMinyatur on November 27, 2003, 02:47:10 am
Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
So the starboard warp nacelle doesn't block the starboard wing phaser on this class? Interesting. So its full arc in SFC would be everthing except LF?
Post by: FireSoul on November 27, 2003, 07:58:09 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
So the starboard warp nacelle doesn't block the starboard wing phaser on this class? Interesting. So its full arc in SFC would be everthing except LF?
That arc, for the left side would be LS + D2.32's Arc..
355-0 + 0-210 + 270-330. .. or something like that. There's NOTHING in SFC that covers for all of that.
Post by: TarMinyatur on November 27, 2003, 10:38:25 am
Post by: FireSoul on November 27, 2003, 10:51:38 am
Quote:
I think regular wing arcs would be more representative of the weird SFB arc than LS/RS. Gaining another cross-deck firing phaser is more useful than covering a flank (which would be covered by the other side's wing phaser anyways).
Is it? I'll have to compare I guess.
Post by: jimmi7769 on November 27, 2003, 09:27:07 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
So the starboard warp nacelle doesn't block the starboard wing phaser on this class? Interesting. So its full arc in SFC would be everthing except LF?
As you can see from this model of an SFB F5 the wing phasers on an F5W would be located on those wing struts which would give then an LS/RS arc but not much more and definately not a D class hull wing arc for sure.
Post by: Jem on November 28, 2003, 01:14:25 pm
P.S. Thanks for your hard work on this FS, especially for putting in seperate F-BCH folders, I really appreciate it.
Post by: Pi-R on November 28, 2003, 02:49:41 pm
Thanks for this great mod. I however have a "small" question regarding the models of the TUGs. Not all TUGs are correctly represent by their model:
F-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
F-TUGc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
G-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
K-TGAc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
L-SRc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
L-SRc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
Z-TGTc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
Z-TGTc3 model has 2 pods instead of 3
R-SKHc1 uses original Taldren model with no pods
R-KRTc1 model has two pods instead of 1
As I have no SFB history, I have no idea how many pods the other tugs actually should have.
Do you have any plans to create matching models for these ships also. I tried kitbaching them but cannot load them in M6 editor. It is just something to make your mod more complete.
Post by: Strafer on November 28, 2003, 03:42:32 pm
Duplicate pods for tugs was deemed more of a space hog for what it was worth...
Post by: FireSoul on November 28, 2003, 05:08:34 pm
Quote:
Hi Firesoul,
Thanks for this great mod. I however have a "small" question regarding the models of the TUGs. Not all TUGs are correctly represent by their model:
F-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
F-TUGc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
G-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
K-TGAc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
L-SRc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
L-SRc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
Z-TGTc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
Z-TGTc3 model has 2 pods instead of 3
R-SKHc1 uses original Taldren model with no pods
R-KRTc1 model has two pods instead of 1
As I have no SFB history, I have no idea how many pods the other tugs actually should have.
Do you have any plans to create matching models for these ships also. I tried kitbaching them but cannot load them in M6 editor. It is just something to make your mod more complete.
This was intentional. The amount of work involved and the size of the installer were factors in having tugs with 0 or the basic # of pods.
Post by: FireSoul on November 30, 2003, 01:07:31 am
I've prepared models for ships I will be adding to OP+ for the next revision. The name? the Federation Express F-FDX and F-FXX.
Go See:
http://forums.taldren.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=222190&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on November 30, 2003, 01:43:52 am
Quote:
Hi Firesoul,
Thanks for this great mod. I however have a "small" question regarding the models of the TUGs. Not all TUGs are correctly represent by their model:
F-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
F-TUGc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
G-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
K-TGAc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
L-SRc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
L-SRc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
Z-TGTc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
Z-TGTc3 model has 2 pods instead of 3
R-SKHc1 uses original Taldren model with no pods
R-KRTc1 model has two pods instead of 1
As I have no SFB history, I have no idea how many pods the other tugs actually should have.
Do you have any plans to create matching models for these ships also. I tried kitbaching them but cannot load them in M6 editor. It is just something to make your mod more complete.
I've given it some thought. Maybe I'll do 'em. We'll see. It'll take time if I do, and I have a lot of shiplist work to do too.
Post by: Pi-R on November 30, 2003, 06:19:52 am
Post by: TarMinyatur on November 30, 2003, 01:32:11 pm
There are some glaring exceptions:
Listed as a FF: F-HDW (0.67), K-F6 (0.67), R-KFR (0.67), L-PFW (0.67)
Listed as a CL: L-DD (0.5), F-DD (0.5), R-BH (0.5), H-LN (0.5), H-KN (0.5), F-NCA (1), F-NCM (1), G-CM (1), H-NCA's (1), K-D5W (1), L-NCA (1), Z-NCA (1)
Listed as a CA: G-CL (0.67), L-CL (0.67), F-BCE (1.25, a borderline DN), I-CAA (1.25, definitely not a DN)
Why does this matter? In some tournaments the terms will list "Light Cruisers" only. To most people this means anything in the Light Cruiser spacedock "box" or the lower right. To this day, I have arguments with people regarding the G-CL being a Heavy Cruiser. It is clearly a CL by any measure. So one could have a tourney situation in which a R-KFR would be allowed but a G-CLF would not. The same can be said of the F-DD line. A F-DD can't be taken as a Frigate, but a superior F-DW or F-HDW could.
Firesoul, maybe you can institute some level of conformity to this chaos. I see that the OP+3.1specs list the F-NCA as a Heavy Cruiser as it should be. So it appears you've done some adjustments on this issue.
Post by: FireSoul on November 30, 2003, 02:42:12 pm
.. it's not a bad idea. I could script detection out, and adjust as needed. At that point, I'll see how it turns out.
You see, sometimes things are as they are for a reason. For example, I ran out of space in a hull class, and would go over the 128 ships limit unless I reclassify the ships.
Post by: FireSoul on November 30, 2003, 04:48:29 pm
I figured I'd have a model for them before I have them in the shiplist.
http://forums.taldren.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=222376&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=
Post by: TarMinyatur on November 30, 2003, 06:31:54 pm
Quote:
Yes, Some but not all..
.. it's not a bad idea. I could script detection out, and adjust as needed. At that point, I'll see how it turns out.
You see, sometimes things are as they are for a reason. For example, I ran out of space in a hull class, and would go over the 128 ships limit unless I reclassify the ships.
Ugh, I didn't think of the 128 ship limit. Anyways, probably the more important ones to reassign are the NCA's, these being labeled "Light Cruisers" drives me nuts since they have 30 or 32 warp. This might free up some space for the HDW's in the CL slots. Thanks for considering this stuff.
Post by: Primus2003 on December 02, 2003, 09:21:17 am
Post by: FireSoul on December 02, 2003, 12:12:39 pm
Quote:
I had wondered why some ships seemed to get shifted around ie the miranda class to the CL instead of NCA type. Why is there 128 max in the prog? Does it cuase a game crash otherwise?
And I'll proably shift things around again, as much as I can, to fix a few things.
As for the 128.. well.. It used to be 64. I think it's like that Bill Gates thing, when he said that PCs would never need more than 640K of RAM.
Post by: Corbomite on December 02, 2003, 02:34:15 pm
We will never get the graphics of the firing arcs in the ship library like in SFC3 (a real shame), but I was wondering if info could be added to the written specs on the side in the library? Something like:
4 x Photon FA
8 x Phaser 1 FH (2) LS (3) RS (3)
2 x Phaser 3 LS (1) RS (1)
2 x Drone G 360
2 x AMD 6 360
I realize this could get lengthy for some ships, but there seems to be plenty of room on the screen. It might not be possible to do all of the ships or maybe not all of the weapons on a ship, but most should be doable if this is at all possible.
Post by: FireSoul on December 02, 2003, 02:41:41 pm
Quote:
This isn't as much a correction as a question.
We will never get the graphics of the firing arcs in the ship library like in SFC3 (a real shame), but I was wondering if info could be added to the written specs on the side in the library? Something like:
4 x Photon FA
8 x Phaser 1 FH (2) LS (3) RS (3)
2 x Phaser 3 LS (1) RS (1)
2 x Drone G 360
2 x AMD 6 360
I realize this could get lengthy for some ships, but there seems to be plenty of room on the screen. It might not be possible to do all of the ships or maybe not all of the weapons on a ship, but most should be doable if this is at all possible.
That would require changing the game itself. I believe SFC:OP's not going to recieve any new patches, so..
-- Luc
Post by: Corbomite on December 03, 2003, 04:48:59 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 03, 2003, 06:42:31 pm
Quote:
Don't know if this has been brought up yet, but the KDR/KDP pointers are pointing to the SNA model not the D5 model. Also I noticed in the stock shiplist that the KDR/KDP ships do not have the rear boom arcs and not all of the klingon D5 types to either. In OP+ I noticed that the KDR/KDP ship did have these arcs. Did you correct all of these or is something screwy going on here.
Thanks for the models mistake. No models pack, right? My error.
As for the boom arcs, yes: I spent time fixing these.
Post by: FireSoul on December 04, 2003, 09:40:37 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
So the starboard warp nacelle doesn't block the starboard wing phaser on this class? Interesting. So its full arc in SFC would be everthing except LF?
As you can see from this model of an SFB F5 the wing phasers on an F5W would be located on those wing struts which would give then an LS/RS arc but not much more and definately not a D class hull wing arc for sure.
I think I'll leave them as LS/RS... Its still the closest arc in my mind. Also, this pic helped.
Post by: FireSoul on December 17, 2003, 09:54:07 am
OP+ 3.2 is well on its way. I've decided to post about the slow progress and let people know where I'm at.
But first some news. I'm back to work. I've been 'off' for 9 months, which allowed for many of the leaps and bounds of shiplist and mod releases I've done in the last year. Now, it's much slower. Of course, things like nights out (hmm.. LoTR:RoTK, anyone?) and xmas (ugh) will take a chunk of my time too.
Ok.. Here's what I've done so far in the OP+ 3.2 project (dubed "3.2", of course):
1- fighterless casual carriers:
In SFB, all carriers are shown with just its base BPV. Unless noted otherwise, fighters are *extra*. Of course, it doesn't make sense to have a dedicated carrier without fighters, but it *does* make sense to allow not having to pay for them if it's optional. This affects many Hydran ships, as well as some others through the shiplist. These ships will be recognizable by the 'n' appended at the end of the ship designation.
These ships will be marked as "R"estricted. These ships shouldn't appear on the D2 since that's not how it works for there.
ie:
The stock shiplist's H-SUI (a Taldren invention) costs 161 BPV.
The OP+ H-SUI costs 167 BPV (stock fighter price leveled with other races).
The OP+ 3.2 H-SUIn will cost 155 BPV and will have no fighters. Nothing is put in place to replace the fighters. The fighters are just not there: the player simply didn't pay for them.
2- Hullclass and Hulltype reclassifications
I reclassified ships into their appropriate lists based on their weight (without pods) and # of engines. No, not BPV. Affected are many ships throughout the shiplist.
ie: Simple relocation example: F-NCM
The F-NCM was listed as "NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER" within the CL list. It has a movement cost of 1 and ~30 warps. I've moved it to the CA list with the other NCAs.
ie: Major adjustment example: HDWs.
The HDWs were listed as "WAR_DESTROYER" mostly within the FF list. They have a movement cost of 2/3 and ~24 warps. I've moved them to the CL list, reclassifying them as "LIGHT_CRUISER". They are, after all, heavier than a WAR_DESTROYER.
3- More freighters for all races.
- repair freighters (large and small)
- exploration freighters (large and small)
- troop transport freighters (large and small)
4- all freighters for pirates too. I've never heard of illegal operations that didn't have some legal front with legitimate operations.
5- civilian freighters for all races. (with new model)
- Free Traders (for everyone)
- Free Traitors (for pirates)
- Free Trooper and Tanker (Marines-related units)
6- A few fun additions, such as the Federation Express
7- System Activity Maintenance Stations (SAMS)
- With various modules installed (Hospital, VIP quarters, cargo, sciences, etc..)
Think as these as small platform stations. These are also used as a kind of listening post in far away systems where other tasks are needed, such as a research station above a planet.
(with new platform model)
8- Commercial Platforms (CPL)
These are similar to the SAMS, but plainer and simply built.
(with new platform model)
9- Recently advised fighter corrections.
Some ISC .III fighters come out before the .II fighters. Dates have been fixed.
From:
Code:
I-Restitution.II 11
I-Writ.II 15
I-Tort.II 17
I-Caveat.II 17
I-Restitution.III 15
I-Writ.III 11
I-Tort.III 11
I-Caveat.III 15
To:
Code:
I-Restitution.II 11
I-Writ.II 11
I-Tort.II 15
I-Caveat.II 15
I-Restitution.III 15
I-Writ.III 15
I-Tort.III 17
I-Caveat.III 17
10- I'm sure there were other corrections.
EDIT: (I forgot this)
11- X1 and X2 Bases.
In some cases, I had to more or less feel my way around in the dark to create proper bases for all races in X1 and X2 era. I just didn't seem right that all races had bases of all kinds from beginning to late era, then when Advanced arrives, all's there is a X2-style SBX.
Well. I renamed all the SBX to XSBs and added the following:
- BSX - X1 base stations
- BSXF(or P) - with Fighters/PFs.
- XBS
- XBSF/P
- BTX
- BTXF/P
- XBT
- XBTF/P
- SBX
- SBXF/P
- XSBF/P
With all the above things, that brings the shiplist to.. .. get this... .. 5248 shiplist entries. (OP+ 3.1 has 4140 entries).
--== TODO ==--
1- Civilian Base Stations
2- Armed Priority Transports and variants (needs a new model)
3- MBs (Mobile Bases aka "Modular Bases" as I'll call them for clarity)
4- Models for Tugs with various number of pods to be completed
As you can see, I'm still gonna be busy. However this should give you an idea of what's gonna be in OP+ 3.2. There aren't any new player-oriented ships except for the "n" variants. However, all these other units should allow any single and multiplayer D2 environments to flourish better. Also, many of these added elements are going to be for scripters to handle and manage.
Later. Gotta work.
-- Luc
Edit: Forgot the hull reclassifications. Added.
Edit2: Forgot the X bases!
Post by: 762 on December 17, 2003, 01:12:23 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 17, 2003, 01:44:26 pm
Quote:
Thanks for doing those "n" variants FS!
Just for you, man.. and you know it.
Post by: 762 on December 17, 2003, 01:55:08 pm
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Post by: ChrsLWlstr on December 17, 2003, 04:55:47 pm
Quote:
And all the other Hydrans on GSA.
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Seems as if we're an endangered species...
Post by: K_hunt on December 18, 2003, 03:01:52 pm
Quote:Quote:
And all the other Hydrans on GSA.
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Seems as if we're an endangered species...
Shhhsshhhh!!! Don't let the Lyrans hear that!
BTW, the Hydrans were alive and kicking on SS2 Chris. You missed a heck of a war.
Post by: 762 on December 18, 2003, 04:30:57 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on December 19, 2003, 11:05:29 am
Quote:
Looks like the S-SLV1 (Syndicate Slaver?) does not point to a model. Model link problem? Causes crash to desktop. You see nothing but the redicle where the model should be.
I was playing a convoy raid mission and the enemy was protecting 4 or 5 slavers.......but they just were'nt there?
Firesoul, did you see this post on page 5 about the Syndicate Slaver?
Post by: FireSoul on December 19, 2003, 11:51:15 am
Quote:
Quote:
Looks like the S-SLV1 (Syndicate Slaver?) does not point to a model. Model link problem? Causes crash to desktop. You see nothing but the redicle where the model should be.
I was playing a convoy raid mission and the enemy was protecting 4 or 5 slavers.......but they just were'nt there?
Firesoul, did you see this post on page 5 about the Syndicate Slaver?
Yes. Is fixed for next version too.
.. I don't want to do a temporary fix EXE because I want to leave Assets/Models alone. The manual quickfix is:
copy opplus/models/pslv/ directory to assets/models. This will fix this OP+ 3.1 problem.
Post by: 762 on December 19, 2003, 02:41:53 pm
Are the model pointers for 3.2 the same as 3.0?
Post by: FireSoul on December 19, 2003, 03:04:36 pm
Quote:
FS, a quick DIP-related question if I may.
Are the model pointers for 3.2 the same as 3.0?
There will be differences. More models.. or "refactored" models.. (if I ever get my ass going and start doing models with various number of pods).
.. and some model renames too, for readability.
So, will 'yes' be enough as an answer?
Post by: 762 on December 19, 2003, 04:18:01 pm
Hope that makes sense.
Post by: FireSoul on December 19, 2003, 04:25:50 pm
ie: fedd (Early Fed DD) --> stays same
ie: fdd+ (Fed DD with TMP warps) -> I think I'll rename it to just fdd. I have done any of this yet.
.. I can't tell you what or where yet.. so: sorry, You'll have to find out at the release.
Post by: 762 on December 19, 2003, 04:43:40 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 20, 2003, 03:56:46 pm
1- Romulan Monitors are supposed to be able to cloak. Vicious slow things, eh?
2- Been asked to place the maulers in more appropriate places in the shiplist, closer to their hull class.
Post by: SSCF_LeRoy on December 20, 2003, 04:56:34 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 20, 2003, 05:02:59 pm
Quote:
Speaking of monitors, what are they and what are they good for?
Monitors are primarily System defense and presence units. They are often assigned for defense of a colonized planet and such.
Also.. (and this is the cool historical part), they are part of the process of building a base.
1- Send a Monitor. Establish a presence.
2- send Tugs with the sections (pods) needed to build a modular base. (SFB's Mobile Base)
3- build the modular base.
4- later on, upgrade the base into a BS (Base Station)
5- BS -> BATS
6- BATS -> SB..
Post by: SSCF_LeRoy on December 20, 2003, 05:18:37 pm
Quote:
Monitors are primarily System defense and presence units. They are often assigned for defense of a colonized planet and such.
What makes them better at doing this than a cruiser? (I'm talkin' about a standard workhorse vessel. Nothing fancy here)
Post by: 762 on December 20, 2003, 05:22:11 pm
Of course they are much cheaper to build than a dread.
Post by: SSCF_LeRoy on December 20, 2003, 05:42:39 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 20, 2003, 05:50:30 pm
Quote:
Basically a mobile base of command?
Not quite. They are defenders. They are geared and designed for defense. While it's true a cruiser could do the same job, not so for periods to up-to months at a time. That would be a waste of a cruiser.
Post by: SSCF_LeRoy on December 20, 2003, 05:57:59 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on December 24, 2003, 12:07:42 pm
If I were to use the 3.2 installer and then put an older 3.0 based shiplist in place would all of the model pointers have somewhere to point??
Are all of the model folders you put into place for the 3.0 list still in the 3.2 release with just more additional models or did you remove some model folders and replace them with new ones??
Post by: FireSoul on December 24, 2003, 12:37:30 pm
Quote:
Another question on the same topic as 762:
If I were to use the 3.2 installer and then put an older 3.0 based shiplist in place would all of the model pointers have somewhere to point??
Are all of the model folders you put into place for the 3.0 list still in the 3.2 release with just more additional models or did you remove some model folders and replace them with new ones??
I thought I was clear, but ok.. once more from scratch:
This isn't gonna be plug-and-play. There are changes. The models dirs ARE different because of more splits between models, and some renames (for style cleanup).
No, you don't just replace the models.
-- Luc
Post by: Rogue on January 03, 2004, 05:11:18 pm
Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?
Post by: FireSoul on January 04, 2004, 02:34:40 am
Quote:
Firesoul, I have a question for you concerning the differences between the Kzinti CCX and CCXm. There is a huge difference between the two with the m suffix seeming to indicate a mirv refit of the CCX. The CCX is equiped with 4 M racks that are removed with the m refit, among other changes, and only graced with a single M rack. Is this correct??? Just wondering here as the CCX is a much more deadly war ship.
The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?
Quote:
Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?
Oddity.
Post by: Rogue on January 04, 2004, 08:17:30 am
Quote:
The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?
Hmmm, well... ya it was Taldrens. However, the BPV for the CCX is 237 and for the m-refit it goes for 157 in OP+. I'll update my specifications. Shoot, they couldn't be more cut and paste. A little this, a litlle that and a lot of OP+...
Quote:
Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?
Oddity.
OK, I like odd stuff. Thank ya.
Post by: FireSoul on January 04, 2004, 08:56:05 am
Quote:Quote:
The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?
Hmmm, well... ya it was Taldrens. However, the BPV for the CCX is 237 and for the m-refit it goes for 157 in OP+. I'll update my specifications. Shoot, they couldn't be more cut and paste. A little this, a litlle that and a lot of OP+...
That BPV error is known, and has been pointed out to me many times before.. It's supposed to be 257 with the m variant.
Post by: Rogue on January 04, 2004, 09:51:03 am
Undoubtably this will pop up again. What worked pretty well for me was folding that lone A rack into the B racks and moving the ADD back over to the heavy weapons slot. perhaps not as accurate as possible but it solved the BPV value without changing the function much. Thanks for your reply and the OP+ list. It adds a lot of fun stuff so no complaining here.Peace bro.
Post by: Corbomite on January 04, 2004, 01:45:47 pm
Post by: FireSoul on January 04, 2004, 04:44:32 pm
Quote:
FS, can you tell me how much BPV a B Drone Rack, an AMD 6 and an AMD 12 add to a ship (respectively) please?
That's a good one. I don't know the exact values, myself. I had to estimate the values based on the orion optionmount charts in the appendix as well as some refits costs when some weapons are added. Also, the number of reloads available due to era ALSO affects the BPV.
For example, I know that replacing a A-rack by a B-rack while keeping the same number of reloads (1?) increases the cost by 1 BPV. The Y175 upgrades increase the reloads by one, and I know that replacing a A rack with 1 reload to a B rack with 2 reloads costs about 1.5 BPV. (costs 2 BPV with a single rack, 3 for 2 racks).
I also know that upgrading a ADD6 to a ADD12 costs about the same: 1 BPV per rack or 1.5 per rack when increasing reloads (based on refit costs).
Extrapolation:
I have evidence from Module R2 that a A-rack costs 4 BPV each. (Z-FH, p51 minus shield refit for same shields with Z-SDF, p65). I have evidence that installing a ADD6 costs 2 BPV based on the books. (K-D6S has shield+ADD6 refit for 6 BPV. Same shield refit but no added ADD6 refit on D6D cost 4)
So:
ADD6: 2 BPV
ADD12:: 3 BPV.
DroA: 4 BPV (1 reload)
DroB: 5 or 6 BPV based on # of reloads.
Post by: Corbomite on January 04, 2004, 04:56:00 pm
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on January 05, 2004, 07:52:56 am
I know this sounds like an odd request, but I'm trying to figure out the Nullsoft installer, and would like to look at your scripts for the OP+ no models installer.
It's for the DIP project if your wondering why I'm asking...
You could send the scripts to the e-mail address in my profile.
Thanks for the consideration / assistance...
Post by: FireSoul on January 05, 2004, 08:10:05 am
Quote:
Firesoul;
I know this sounds like an odd request, but I'm trying to figure out the Nullsoft installer, and would like to look at your scripts for the OP+ no models installer.
It's for the DIP project if your wondering why I'm asking...
You could send the scripts to the e-mail address in my profile.
Thanks for the consideration / assistance...
I'm very relunctant to share my installer config files. These are the last things left in OP+ that I haven't shared with other people and projects that is really mine. What is it you need, anyways?
Post by: Fluf on January 05, 2004, 12:42:11 pm
I can understand your reluctance to release these config files to him, as you put alot of work into it. However, it would be a big help to us in the DIP so we can get our project moving.
Post by: FireSoul on January 05, 2004, 01:44:17 pm
Quote:
Firesoul, Julin is attempting to make the DIP shiplist installer for us. He normally used batch files in the past servers he worked on for me, but wants to use the Nullsoft installer instead for ease of use for the players. Im sure he just wants to see how you configured some of your files, to cut some time down on the learning curve for the installer. Currently the DIP shiplist is using the OP+3.0 installer, since the shiplist is based on the SS2 shiplist. However, we want to make and independant installer, as we dont want to use your past work for our installer, as there will be constant updates and changes to our shiplist as time goes on.
I can understand your reluctance to release these config files to him, as you put alot of work into it. However, it would be a big help to us in the DIP so we can get our project moving.
Well..
.. I'm going to make a demand in exchange: put me and my works in the credits. So far, it's obvious that it's my work being used as a starting point for the DIP because you're still using my installer. Last thing I want is to be forgotten after having spent hundreds of hours on the whole thing.
If that's all right, sure. I'll send you the installer files for both the models and non-models versions of OP+ 3.0.
Post by: Strafer on January 05, 2004, 02:06:38 pm
Quote:
...after having spent hundreds of hours on the whole thing.
"Hundreds"?
More like a coupla thousand by my math.
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on January 05, 2004, 02:24:27 pm
Quote:Quote:
Firesoul, Julin is attempting to make the DIP shiplist installer for us. He normally used batch files in the past servers he worked on for me, but wants to use the Nullsoft installer instead for ease of use for the players. Im sure he just wants to see how you configured some of your files, to cut some time down on the learning curve for the installer. Currently the DIP shiplist is using the OP+3.0 installer, since the shiplist is based on the SS2 shiplist. However, we want to make and independant installer, as we dont want to use your past work for our installer, as there will be constant updates and changes to our shiplist as time goes on.
I can understand your reluctance to release these config files to him, as you put alot of work into it. However, it would be a big help to us in the DIP so we can get our project moving.
Well..
.. I'm going to make a demand in exchange: put me and my works in the credits. So far, it's obvious that it's my work being used as a starting point for the DIP because you're still using my installer. Last thing I want is to be forgotten after having spent hundreds of hours on the whole thing.
If that's all right, sure. I'll send you the installer files for both the models and non-models versions of OP+ 3.0.
No problem. Your name needed to show up anyway as the current shiplist is based off the 3.0 work...
I'll just add the installer help to that byline...
Post by: FireSoul on January 05, 2004, 02:40:02 pm
Quote:
No problem. Your name needed to show up anyway as the current shiplist is based off the 3.0 work...
In that case, email sent to Julin. Please don't distribute.
Edit: Curiosity: what about all the people I give credits to, myself? For all the models and such.. Is there something planned for those?
Post by: jimmi7769 on January 05, 2004, 02:57:13 pm
Quote:Quote:
Edit: Curiosity: what about all the people I give credits to, myself? For all the models and such.. Is there something planned for those?
We aren't going to have two different installers just the one without the models. so that won't be necessary. Unless there were others working on your shiplist and in that case just send Julin the proper credits and they'll be there.
Post by: FireSoul on January 05, 2004, 03:01:48 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Edit: Curiosity: what about all the people I give credits to, myself? For all the models and such.. Is there something planned for those?
We aren't going to have two different installers just the one without the models. so that won't be necessary. Unless there were others working on your shiplist and in that case just send Julin the proper credits and they'll be there.
You'll have a no-models version only? That sucks..
Well, there's been a few people who's helped me in the past. I've taken in shiplist tidbits from people like TarMinyatur.. .. and I there was someone else. I don't remember who, though.
..and Strafer did some shiplist entries himself a bit way back when because he really wanted to see some ships come up. He's the only other person who actively worked on OP+ at some point or other.
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on January 05, 2004, 08:02:33 pm
Will not re-send without your permission...
Post by: Corbomite on January 05, 2004, 11:07:46 pm
Quote:
That's a good one. I don't know the exact values, myself. I had to estimate the values based on the orion optionmount charts in the appendix as well as some refits costs when some weapons are added. Also, the number of reloads available due to era ALSO affects the BPV.
You know this struck me after awhile as odd. Are you using Annex #8B - Orion Pirate Optional Weapons Cost Chart or the old Annex #6A - Ship Modification Cost Chart (SFB Commander's Rulebook Vol. III, 1985)?
Post by: FireSoul on January 06, 2004, 01:00:10 am
Quote:Quote:
That's a good one. I don't know the exact values, myself. I had to estimate the values based on the orion optionmount charts in the appendix as well as some refits costs when some weapons are added. Also, the number of reloads available due to era ALSO affects the BPV.
You know this struck me after awhile as odd. Are you using Annex #8B - Orion Pirate Optional Weapons Cost Chart or the old Annex #6A - Ship Modification Cost Chart (SFB Commander's Rulebook Vol. III, 1985)?
In this context I meant #8B, although I did not give you the values from that this time.
Post by: Corbomite on January 06, 2004, 09:52:52 am
Post by: FireSoul on January 06, 2004, 11:03:39 am
Quote:
Do you need the old 6A?
Someone gave me an old Commander's Edition rulebook, although I never bothered to look in it. I mean, c'mon. It dates from the days I was 10 years old and was watching Transformers (Gen 1, of course) on TV!
.. but maybe I'll gander a look-see now..
Post by: Corbomite on January 06, 2004, 12:44:34 pm
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on January 17, 2004, 11:56:34 pm
The F-FFG is using the model ..OPPLUS/MODELS/FFF/FFF.MOD, but models .siz has no entry for that; allowing the modelers scaling to take over. When you use Moonraker's Okinawa Class Destroyer... Well, she looks about twice the size of her FFL wing.
BTW: with the soon to be launched OP+ 3.2, am I wasting my time getting my OP+ models set to taste, or will there be no changes to the models?
Post by: FireSoul on January 18, 2004, 01:56:12 am
Quote:
Long thread, and I don't know if it's come up, but...
The F-FFG is using the model ..OPPLUS/MODELS/FFF/FFF.MOD, but models .siz has no entry for that; allowing the modelers scaling to take over. When you use Moonraker's Okinawa Class Destroyer... Well, she looks about twice the size of her FFL wing.
Yeah. fixed already for 3.2... I wrote some perl thingy that compares the contents of the installer with the shiplist, the models dir, and the model.siz.. then the model.siz with the shiplist and the installer, as well as the models directory.. etc.
Quote:
BTW: with the soon to be launched OP+ 3.2, am I wasting my time getting my OP+ models set to taste, or will there be no changes to the models?
There will be some changes. I suggest you back up your current opplus/models to another location, uninstall OP+ 3.1, install 3.2, and then restore the models you'll need. Most of the updates I've done are renames (smoothing it out from this side), but mostly addtions.
Post by: FireSoul on January 18, 2004, 06:16:51 am
For the release notice of OP+ 3.2, go see: http://forums.taldren.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=251777&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=
If you have needs of a corrections thread for 3.2, please start a new thread.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on September 25, 2003, 01:47:46 pm
I decided to go ahead and just publish the darned thing without further ado, because I figure I have done enough testing already.
Post by: Dogmatix! on September 25, 2003, 05:20:48 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 01, 2003, 12:57:01 am
1) F-CDW is a commando version of the Ortega class war destroyer. The shiplist should point to the OP 3.1 fdw.mod not fhdw.mod.
2) F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin? That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me. Just opinion here.
3) F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model? Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist. I know this is a picky question.
4) F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
6) Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?
Well now, that should just about make the OP 3.1 shiplist perfect for the feds.
Firesoul........excellent work. I'm loving this. Next I'll review the Klinks and eventually the rest.
Post by: FireSoul on October 01, 2003, 09:33:28 am
Quote:
O.k. I've gone through the Fed portion of the 3.1 shiplist. Here are my questions:
1) F-CDW is a commando version of the Ortega class war destroyer. The shiplist should point to the OP 3.1 fdw.mod not fhdw.mod.
Right. Thanks.
Quote:
2) F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin? That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me. Just opinion here.
The single warp engine was removed, and a dual warp engine system with 12 warps each was installed, NCL-style.
Quote:
3) F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model? Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist. I know this is a picky question.
Good one.. Hmm.. I guess you're right. I'm goping to have to review that.
Quote:
4) F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.
Right. Thanks.
Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
Picky's what I need, here, when it comes to models.
Quote:
6) Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?
Just like the item 2 above, it was a conversion.
Quote:
Well now, that should just about make the OP 3.1 shiplist perfect for the feds.
Firesoul........excellent work. I'm loving this. Next I'll review the Klinks and eventually the rest.
Are you having fun, at least?
Post by: Corbomite on October 01, 2003, 10:12:57 am
Post by: FireSoul on October 01, 2003, 10:27:39 am
Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
*looks at SSD*
30 warp
4 Impulse
5 APR
Yes.
Edit addition: It's a D7C, converted. The "Emer Impulse" which is in the boom is an APR in the Romulan conversion.
-- Luc
Post by: Corbomite on October 01, 2003, 10:48:25 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 01, 2003, 12:49:57 pm
Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Post by: Corbomite on October 01, 2003, 01:13:19 pm
Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Then I guess you answered your own question.
Post by: FireSoul on October 01, 2003, 03:39:46 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Then I guess you answered your own question.
The KRC is based on the D7C. The KRCS is a PLaS refit of the KRC. It doesn't add power.
.. and no, I do not see a D7W variant in the shiplist, nor any SSDs.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 01, 2003, 03:54:06 pm
Quote:
The single warp engine was removed, and a dual warp engine system with 12 warps each was installed, NCL-style.
Ahh, then the model makes sense. I need to read up a bit on the x-ships. I've got all the latest SFB stuff, but it's been a while since I read the x-ship descriptions. I'll go through that stuff tonight to refresh my memory. I have been using one of the latest Master Ship Charts from the "un-official SFB website" as I go through your shiplist. The DGX was listed under the Saladin class so, without reading the description, I assumed it's appearance was similar. Not!!
Quote:
Are you having fun, at least?
Oh yes......I love this stuff. I tend to gravitate toward "complicated" hobbies.............except for my beer drinking hobby that is.
I reviewed the Kingon shiplist earlier today and it looks pretty good. I don't have my notes with me because I'm not currently at home so here's some things from memory (I'll post more details from my notes later):
1) The K-E3 and the K-G2 are essentially the same hull. Shouldn't the E3 use the same model as the G2? For me this is a tough one to answer based on the description I read for the E3. It said something like "The E3 is basically a smaller version of the E4". Does this mean the E4, E3, and G2 should all use the same model? I'm going to go ahead and make the E3 use the G2 model myself. This could just be left alone and let the fans just swap the model in the model folders, but I wanted to see your thoughts on this.
2) The captured Lyran ships (can't remember designations) both point ot the wrong model. The Panther CL points to the CA model instead of the CL model, and the Leopard DD points to the CL model instead of the DD model. Maybe I missed something funky here with the model paths, but I think there's something wrong with these.
I'll post more late tonight. Thanks.
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 01, 2003, 06:46:55 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Then I guess you answered your own question.
The KRC is based on the D7C. The KRCS is a PLaS refit of the KRC. It doesn't add power.
.. and no, I do not see a D7W variant in the shiplist, nor any SSDs.
Agreed. I never knew the KRCS had 41 power in the stock list. I know it's wrong, I just didn't know it.
As for a KRW....hmmm, sounds interesting.....
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on October 02, 2003, 01:34:07 pm
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
KF
Post by: FireSoul on October 02, 2003, 01:49:16 pm
Quote:
Stupid question time:
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
KF
What do you mean? I don't follow what you're asking about.
Post by: DH123 on October 02, 2003, 03:02:37 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
When did it ever have 41???
The D7W has 41. They don't have a D7W based ship, though I'm sure they'd like one......
Well, I see it right there in the stock list.
Then I guess you answered your own question.
The KRC is based on the D7C. The KRCS is a PLaS refit of the KRC. It doesn't add power.
.. and no, I do not see a D7W variant in the shiplist, nor any SSDs.
Agreed. I never knew the KRCS had 41 power in the stock list. I know it's wrong, I just didn't know it.
As for a KRW....hmmm, sounds interesting.....
Agreed.
Post by: FireSoul on October 02, 2003, 03:02:40 pm
Quote:
Stupid question time:
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
In my own installed OP dir, these files are still present.
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on October 03, 2003, 03:05:02 pm
NON-OP PLUS Shiplist questions:
LDR/Camboro:
They simply can?t go into Tiger Heart and Camboro slots correct?
Mirror Universe Terran Empire Imperial ships:
Should they simply be a copy of the Federation shiplist renamed to a pirate cartel designation? E. g., Syndicate ?S-FBCH?
I applaud your work but I'm not a big TOS/SFB model fan. Your FDNG model I have as part of my Imperials that includes nearly ALL the kitbashes of P81's USS EXPLORER... I figure the Imperials are more war oriented and have more uniform ship designs.
Qapla!
KF
Post by: IndyShark on October 03, 2003, 06:03:04 pm
Post by: Strafer on October 03, 2003, 06:11:30 pm
Post by: FireSoul on October 03, 2003, 07:47:32 pm
Quote:
LDR/Camboro:
They simply can?t go into Tiger Heart and Camboro slots correct?
The problem is in the engine doubling. Viewing a ship while buying it would also be broken if looking for a ship that didn't originate from that race. ie: lyran ships have to be in the lyran race to show up properly everywhere.
Quote:
Mirror Universe Terran Empire Imperial ships:
Should they simply be a copy of the Federation shiplist renamed to a pirate cartel designation? E. g., Syndicate ?S-FBCH?
Same as above: broken engine doubling (which could be turned off) and minor vieing problems.
Quote:
I applaud your work but I'm not a big TOS/SFB model fan. Your FDNG model I have as part of my Imperials that includes nearly ALL the kitbashes of P81's USS EXPLORER... I figure the Imperials are more war oriented and have more uniform ship designs.
To each his own, remember that.
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on October 04, 2003, 05:17:50 am
Qapla!
KF
Post by: Atrahasis on October 04, 2003, 01:41:08 pm
Quote:
2) F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin? That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me. Just opinion here.
The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.
Quote:
3) F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model? Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist. I know this is a picky question.
That depends....according to some sources the TMP "makoeover" started as soon as 2265.
Quote:
4) F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.
No Burke class could possibly be worthy to recieve an X-refit because the style and tech for that class are more than 60 years old by the year 2300. That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.
Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.
Quote:
6) Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?
The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well, which was the Hermes class. The F-SC+ could be any any newer scout class, possibly and probably TMP style.
Post by: Atrahasis on October 04, 2003, 01:43:26 pm
Quote:Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
*looks at SSD*
30 warp
4 Impulse
5 APR
Yes.
Edit addition: It's a D7C, converted. The "Emer Impulse" which is in the boom is an APR in the Romulan conversion.
-- Luc
You might want to refer to how the ship specs were for SFC1, because between SFC1 and SFC2, many ships were castrated in engine power and weapons, for dubious reasons. The KRCS is probably one of them, I know for a fact that the KCR and the C-7 and the Fed BC's were among the castrated.
Post by: FireSoul on October 04, 2003, 02:55:12 pm
Quote:Quote:
2) F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin? That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me. Just opinion here.
The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.Quote:
3) F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model? Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist. I know this is a picky question.
That depends....according to some sources the TMP "makoeover" started as soon as 2265.Quote:
4) F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.
No Burke class could possibly be worthy to recieve an X-refit because the style and tech for that class are more than 60 years old by the year 2300. That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.Quote:
6) Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+. The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod. Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech. Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?
The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well, which was the Hermes class. The F-SC+ could be any any newer scout class, possibly and probably TMP style.
Would you mind giving me suggestions for which models to use? (and, I know it's a pain... , where I can find these models..)
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 04, 2003, 08:49:21 pm
Quote:
The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.
I was only referring to SFB references since Firesoul said that his shiplist was adding the missing stuff from SFB. According to SFB the F-DD+ is still considered a Saladin class. I realize other publications refer to other non-Saladin destroyers, but I think in this case Firesoul is focusing on the SFB master ship chart which lists the F-DD+ under the Saldin class.
In the case of the F-DGX Firesoul used an appropriate model because according to the SFB ship description the single engine was removed and replaced with two engines. The picture in the book also confirms this.
Quote:
That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.
Again, according to the SFB manual the later versions of the Burke class are still considered Burke classes.
Quote:
This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.
Yes you are absolutely correct. The FLG is listed under the Burke class. My bad.
Quote:
The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well
Same issue as above. If we are just using SFB, the F-SC+ is still based on the Saladin. It's definate listed this way in the Master ship chart.
Post by: Atrahasis on October 05, 2003, 04:19:39 am
Post by: Atrahasis on October 05, 2003, 04:25:16 am
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on October 05, 2003, 01:18:28 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 05, 2003, 01:31:42 pm
I don't want to speak for Firesoul, but I think he is trying to blend both TOS and TMP Trek with SFB stats. For example, the F-CA came out in SFB year Y130 which would translate to year 2230 and would use the TOS CA model. The F-CA+ shows an SFB year of Y165 which would use the Enterprise class TMP model. This make sense to me. I think this convention works with the other ship classes and races too.
I like the way Firesoul is doing it. He's trying to stick to SFB, but also trying to blend in real trek as best he can.
Converting SFB Y-years to real trek years is a "nebulous" process which requires some compromises here and there, but I think the finished OP+ product does a good job.
Don Miller's SFB website also has a good timeline interpretation which relates technology eras from Trek to SFB. Here it is: http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/rules/rule.txt Scroll down a few pages to get to the timeline. I like the way this SFB to Trek translation was done.
Post by: FireSoul on October 05, 2003, 02:40:51 pm
Quote:
I have always considered SFB to be all the Kirk era stuff, not just TOS show. Even though SFB is supposedly TOS only, I think we can unofficially consider it to include TMP stuff too.
I don't want to speak for Firesoul, but I think he is trying to blend both TOS and TMP Trek with SFB stats. For example, the F-CA came out in SFB year Y130 which would translate to year 2230 and would use the TOS CA model. The F-CA+ shows an SFB year of Y165 which would use the Enterprise class TMP model. This make sense to me. I think this convention works with the other ship classes and races too.
I like the way Firesoul is doing it. He's trying to stick to SFB, but also trying to blend in real trek as best he can.
Converting SFB Y-years to real trek years is a "nebulous" process which requires some compromises here and there, but I think the finished OP+ product does a good job.
Don Miller's SFB website also has a good timeline interpretation which relates technology eras from Trek to SFB. Here it is: http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/rules/rule.txt Scroll down a few pages to get to the timeline. I like the way this SFB to Trek translation was done.
You understand the idea behind the work. I wanted to preserve the TMP look and feel of thegame. It seemed to me that the + refit seemed like a perfect excuse to 'upgrade' ships to TMP versions. In other words, all Fed ships in existance previously to the + refit should be in the TOS style, which is pretty much what I've done so far.
Now, it's obvious that I still have some touch-ups to do, such as making sure the F-FLGs are using the Burke class models. However, the mod progress nearer still to what I imagined to be a completed work.
Hm. Question: does anyone know where to find a TMP version of the Texas Class (Old) Light Cruiser? They also recieve a + refit, so I wonder if it would recieve a TMP-era refit.
Post by: Karnak on October 05, 2003, 07:25:52 pm
For the first time ever there is going to be an active effort to integrate the 3.1 shiplist with the EEK missions so that they achieve maximum results. Basically, I am going to take the OP v3.1 shiplist and re-classify ships into pre-defined slots that will pool ships into restricted and non-restricted categories. The EEK missions are already constructed to observed such a ship classifying architecture so in order for a dyna to get maximum results out of the missions, the shiplist has to be configured properly. All present and future EEK missions will be using the CnC architecture as a basis for mission development.
The architecture is detailed in the ISC Inv. CnC rules along with a recommended shipyard cost chart:
CnC Architecture used by EEK missions
You will notice that the restricted ship classes of BATTLESHIP, DREADNOUGHT, CARRIER and SPECIAL are prohibitively costed out (ie. from 10 times to 40 times the cost of a Heavy Cruiser). Or, the dyna can use the FM-restriction system used in SG3 and SS2 to just manually assigned the ships and take them out of the shipyard completely. These restricted ship classes also are never used in EEK for enemy AI generation so it's important that only ships meant to be restricted are placed in these class types.
I already have an OP v31 converted shiplist ready to release with the next EEK mission pack but I would first like to vet it in an upcoming project before making it available to all.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 05, 2003, 08:47:43 pm
Quote:
does anyone know where to find a TMP version of the Texas Class (Old) Light Cruiser? They also recieve a + refit, so I wonder if it would recieve a TMP-era refit.
Tough question. Here's my ideas:
I have no problem with all of these ships keeping the TOS look (even the CL+).
In my opinion, since these ships are over 100 years old and were already highly upgraded just to make them warp capable and get shields, I doubt starfleet would have upgraded the engines on these ships to the point that they took on a TMP look. I think a few of them could have been upgraded that far as prototypes, but my opinion is that it makes little sense to upgrade the Texas class so extensively on top of the previous massive upgrades considering they were developing the NCL about the same time.
Lastly, since these ships are so old, keeping the TOS look gives them that old ship look and feel.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 06, 2003, 12:58:26 am
I have reviewed Romulan, Lyrans, and Gorn in shiplist. Here are discrepancies I think I found:
Romulans:
I found no "real" problems with shiplist. My only comments are about models.
1) The Centurian PF is related to the old series Eagle class ships, or at least follows their design lineage. It should use the Feral Yards model currently linked by the Deceurion INT in my opinion. I would then use the Taldren Romulan PF model for the Decurion. The Starhawk is fine with the Feral yards Starhawk model. Just opinion here.
2) Man I wish there were more Romulan Models out there. I searched and searched to no avail. I wish there were a better model for the Demonhawk, Freight Eagle, KRT, Vul, Skyhawk, Seahawk, and Sabrehawk. The Hawk series is really the delema. I love the Feral yards models used down to the Sparrowhawk, unfortunately the Feral Yards stopped there. Below that, all the models available for the Skyhawk and Seahawk are out of character with the Feral yards based models. If I use the Fleetdock 13 SFB models for the Skyhawk etc. I really need to use them all and should replace the Feral models. Dunno?
Lyrans:
1) Should the L-DND Mountain Lion DD use the LFF model?
2) L-FLG and varients should be a Cheetah FF model.
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.
Gorn:
1) G-FCR and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model.
2) G-FLG and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model. Check all race FLG's, I bet many are wrong models!! There's a pattern here.
3) G-SC and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model.
4) G-SR and varients should use Megalosaurus class CL model.
O.K. that's enough abuse for tonight.
Post by: FireSoul on October 06, 2003, 03:54:05 pm
Quote:
Just a friendly FYI.
For the first time ever there is going to be an active effort to integrate the 3.1 shiplist with the EEK missions so that they achieve maximum results. Basically, I am going to take the OP v3.1 shiplist and re-classify ships into pre-defined slots that will pool ships into restricted and non-restricted categories. The EEK missions are already constructed to observed such a ship classifying architecture so in order for a dyna to get maximum results out of the missions, the shiplist has to be configured properly. All present and future EEK missions will be using the CnC architecture as a basis for mission development.
The architecture is detailed in the ISC Inv. CnC rules along with a recommended shipyard cost chart:
CnC Architecture used by EEK missions
You will notice that the restricted ship classes of BATTLESHIP, DREADNOUGHT, CARRIER and SPECIAL are prohibitively costed out (ie. from 10 times to 40 times the cost of a Heavy Cruiser). Or, the dyna can use the FM-restriction system used in SG3 and SS2 to just manually assigned the ships and take them out of the shipyard completely. These restricted ship classes also are never used in EEK for enemy AI generation so it's important that only ships meant to be restricted are placed in these class types.
I already have an OP v31 converted shiplist ready to release with the next EEK mission pack but I would first like to vet it in an upcoming project before making it available to all.
Good idea...
.. for a D2-based shiplist.
Post by: FireSoul on October 06, 2003, 04:27:03 pm
Quote:
O.K. it's 1:30 in the morning.....do I love this game or what?
I have reviewed Romulan, Lyrans, and Gorn in shiplist. Here are discrepancies I think I found:
Romulans:
I found no "real" problems with shiplist. My only comments are about models.
1) The Centurian PF is related to the old series Eagle class ships, or at least follows their design lineage. It should use the Feral Yards model currently linked by the Deceurion INT in my opinion. I would then use the Taldren Romulan PF model for the Decurion. The Starhawk is fine with the Feral yards Starhawk model. Just opinion here.
I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.
Quote:
2) Man I wish there were more Romulan Models out there. I searched and searched to no avail. I wish there were a better model for the Demonhawk, Freight Eagle, KRT, Vul, Skyhawk, Seahawk, and Sabrehawk. The Hawk series is really the delema. I love the Feral yards models used down to the Sparrowhawk, unfortunately the Feral Yards stopped there. Below that, all the models available for the Skyhawk and Seahawk are out of character with the Feral yards based models. If I use the Fleetdock 13 SFB models for the Skyhawk etc. I really need to use them all and should replace the Feral models. Dunno?
I do what I can.. but the fleetdock 13 models kinda makes the models look... klunky.
Quote:
Lyrans:
1) Should the L-DND Mountain Lion DD use the LFF model?
2) L-FLG and varients should be a Cheetah FF model.
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.
1- It actually deserves its own model. It was supposed to be the middle portion of a Lyran DN Catamaran. Unfortunately, the FeralYards model for the LDN makes the middle part way bigger than it should be (even tho it looks cool). I don't know what to do there.
2- Probably all FLGs need to be checked.
3- It's a modified DD, not a DW.
4- SCX is DD-based, not DW based.
5- see #4.
Quote:
Gorn:
1) G-FCR and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model.
2) G-FLG and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model. Check all race FLG's, I bet many are wrong models!! There's a pattern here.
3) G-SC and varients should use Carnosaurus class DD model.
4) G-SR and varients should use Megalosaurus class CL model.
I'll check these later on..
Quote:
O.K. that's enough abuse for tonight.
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on October 06, 2003, 10:01:30 pm
There are 13 Klingon Academy style Tholian models (higher poly than the GAW 'mini-mod' just released) and a full set of TMP Andromedans based on P81's TMP Imposer and Cobra all at SFU....
Please advise.
KF
Post by: FireSoul on October 06, 2003, 10:27:34 pm
Quote:
OK, I'll ask: "Are you now going to add Tholians and Andromedans to the OP+ shiplist?" If so, I will love to have a single uniform shiplist rather than patching different parts to the OP+ one.
There are 13 Klingon Academy style Tholian models (higher poly than the GAW 'mini-mod' just released) and a full set of TMP Andromedans based on P81's TMP Imposer and Cobra all at SFU....
Please advise.
KF
No.
Post by: CptCastrin on October 06, 2003, 11:35:35 pm
I've seen this happen before when using ShipEdit. I don't know if you used that but I figured you should know.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 07, 2003, 12:07:34 am
Quote:
I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.
I like this idea.
Quote:
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
Quote:
3- It's a modified DD, not a DW.
Nope. I doublechecked. The WYN pocket "BB" (that's bee bee) is a modified Lyran DD. The WYN pocket "BC" (that's bee see) is based on the Lyran DW.
Quote:
4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.
Quote:
4- SCX is DD-based, not DW based.
5- see #4.
Nope again. Doublechecked again. The L-SCX and L-DSCX are both based on Lyran War Destroyer. The L-SC is the one based on the DD.
Isn't this fun.
Oh and don't forget those klingon "captured" Lyrans I mentioned earlier in the thread.
On to the ISC.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 07, 2003, 12:48:15 am
Of course it's the I-FLG model link. Should be ISC DD model, not ISC FF. Same with I-FLGW.
As you can see I'm mostly reviewing model links in the shiplist right now. Other issues like hardpoints will have to wait until I have more time.
Post by: FireSoul on October 07, 2003, 01:08:16 am
Quote:
FS your fighter list has duplicate columns.
I've seen this happen before when using ShipEdit. I don't know if you used that but I figured you should know.
Crap. Thanks.
Post by: FireSoul on October 07, 2003, 01:09:42 am
Quote:
Quote:
I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.
I like this idea.
Quote:
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
Quote:
3- It's a modified DD, not a DW.
Nope. I doublechecked. The WYN pocket "BB" (that's bee bee) is a modified Lyran DD. The WYN pocket "BC" (that's bee see) is based on the Lyran DW.Quote:
4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.Quote:
4- SCX is DD-based, not DW based.
5- see #4.
Nope again. Doublechecked again. The L-SCX and L-DSCX are both based on Lyran War Destroyer. The L-SC is the one based on the DD.
Isn't this fun.
Oh and don't forget those klingon "captured" Lyrans I mentioned earlier in the thread.
On to the ISC.
I'm going to have to check the SSDs. They always do the final ruling.
Post by: GT-Keravnos on October 07, 2003, 09:49:35 am
Models galore, goodness all around.
Just one question. Why did you change the Hydran fighters? The stock ones (model wise) were one of the prettier models I have ever seen.
Just thought I would mention that. If you aren't going to change them perhaps you should make them a little smaller? They look kinda huge right now. (when compared to the other fighters)
Also, is there ANY way you can get HYENA in the game?
Keep up the FABULOUS work! I am loving what I am seeing!
Post by: GT-Keravnos on October 07, 2003, 09:55:44 am
Even as an AI enemy.
Also, are you thinking of tackleing Early years?
Andro CA against 5 MONS WITH hornet 3's... Poor Hydrans.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on October 07, 2003, 04:11:13 pm
Quote:
2) Man I wish there were more Romulan Models out there. I searched and searched to no avail. I wish there were a better model for the Demonhawk, Freight Eagle, KRT, Vul, Skyhawk, Seahawk, and Sabrehawk. The Hawk series is really the delema. I love the Feral yards models used down to the Sparrowhawk, unfortunately the Feral Yards stopped there. Below that, all the models available for the Skyhawk and Seahawk are out of character with the Feral yards based models. If I use the Fleetdock 13 SFB models for the Skyhawk etc. I really need to use them all and should replace the Feral models. Dunno?
I do what I can.. but the fleetdock 13 models kinda makes the models look... klunky.
Firesoul, have you considered using a FASA model? There's a model out there that would work nicely IMO; I can't remember what it's called but it fits the description of the skyhawk nicely. The only thing is that it's a cruiser size model - but model size takes care of that.
The other thing is there a reason you didn't use Atra's stormbird for the RKCA model?
Post by: Fahrenheit on October 07, 2003, 06:13:48 pm
Quote:
You might want to refer to how the ship specs were for SFC1, because between SFC1 and SFC2, many ships were castrated in engine power and weapons, for dubious reasons. The KRCS is probably one of them, I know for a fact that the KCR and the C-7 and the Fed BC's were among the castrated.
They were "castrated" in the sense that they lost some Ph-3s and APR. The stuff they lost was artificially added to the ships in question to make up for the fact that SFC1 did not have ADDs. So, for each ADD rack a ship was supposed to have, it got one Ph-3 and half an apr, rounded up, to power the ph-3 (since the ADD didn't use power).
With the introduction of ADD racks in SFC2, the weapons and power that shouldn't have been there in the first place were removed and the ADDs the ship was supposed to have were added.
F°
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on October 10, 2003, 11:39:00 pm
Reviewed Mirakzinti shiplist. Only real problem noted is again the FLG has wrong model link.
Hydrans also complete:
1) Is the Caravan Tug supposed to use the Taldren HCA model?
I noted that you used the Feral Yards Hydran models mostly. I saw that from the Monarch class BB on down to the Cheyenne NCA you used "all" Feral Yards models for these, but for the Mongol class CM, Horseman class CL, Lancer class DD, and Hunter class FF there is a mixture of Feral Yards and Taldren models used.
What is surprising is that these models are mixed "within the same hull class"!! For example the Mongol class uses the Taldren HCL.mod model. Some varients of this class like the Apache and Commanche also use the Taldren model (which is understandable) but then the varients Cossack medium carrier and Tar Tar medium cruiser use Feral Yards models that don't match the Taldren model.
My question is: What is the thinking here? I'm trying to figure out the thought pattern you used for deciding what model to use for each ship? Do the models create distinction between Hellbore and Fusion varients? What's the pattern to the Hydran model selection?
Post by: FireSoul on October 11, 2003, 12:51:25 am
Quote:
Firesoul,
Reviewed Mirakzinti shiplist. Only real problem noted is again the FLG has wrong model link.
Hydrans also complete:
1) Is the Caravan Tug supposed to use the Taldren HCA model?
I noted that you used the Feral Yards Hydran models mostly. I saw that from the Monarch class BB on down to the Cheyenne NCA you used "all" Feral Yards models for these, but for the Mongol class CM, Horseman class CL, Lancer class DD, and Hunter class FF there is a mixture of Feral Yards and Taldren models used.
What is surprising is that these models are mixed "within the same hull class"!! For example the Mongol class uses the Taldren HCL.mod model. Some varients of this class like the Apache and Commanche also use the Taldren model (which is understandable) but then the varients Cossack medium carrier and Tar Tar medium cruiser use Feral Yards models that don't match the Taldren model.
My question is: What is the thinking here? I'm trying to figure out the thought pattern you used for deciding what model to use for each ship? Do the models create distinction between Hellbore and Fusion varients? What's the pattern to the Hydran model selection?
Dunno. I have nothing against the Taldren Hydran models. I guess I was just being imaginative.
Post by: TarMinyatur on October 21, 2003, 01:10:05 am
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Post by: Lieutenant_Q on October 21, 2003, 01:32:26 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 21, 2003, 08:41:16 am
Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
No, they're LS/RS all right. The wing arcs would be nice but thats a design feature of the D class hulls. The F/E class are way different designs.
Post by: TarMinyatur on October 21, 2003, 06:30:58 pm
Post by: Atrahasis on October 22, 2003, 12:43:43 am
Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
No, they're LS/RS all right. The wing arcs would be nice but thats a design feature of the D class hulls. The F/E class are way different designs.
If any Connie-style Fed ship has LS and RS arcs instead of those split arcs, then you can count on it looking like the Battlecruiser with the lowered warp engines.
Post by: Corbomite on October 22, 2003, 12:08:55 pm
Changes From
F-BCG to F-BCV -
BPV Difference = 33
+8 Fighters
+15 Crew
+1 Tractor
-2 Stock Shuttles
-3 Max Shuttles
K-C7 to K-C7V-
BPV Difference = 38
+8 Fighters
+16 Crew
-2 Stock Shuttles
H-OV to H-OS-
BPV Difference = 29
+6 Fighters
+19 Crew
-2 Stock Shuttles
-1 Max Shuttle
I-CCZ to I-BCV-
BPV Difference = 34
+8 Fighters
+6 Crew
-4 Marines
-8 Max Marines
-4 Power
-1 Stock Shuttle
-2 Max Shuttles
Z-BCH to Z-BCV-
BPV Difference = 38
+8 Fighters
+6 Crew
-1 Max Shuttle
So the Hydrans pay a little less because they get less added and a good bit taken away. The Feds and Klings seem on par as usual. Now the Mirak are paying as much as the Klings and getting 10 less crew and the permanant loss of one shuttle while the Klings only miss out on the 2 freebie shuttles for the same cost. The ISC are just disgusting and I think speak for themselves. That ship is a travesty. The heavier fighters are a slight push, but the BCV cost 263 before FS beefed up the fighters. Paying 34 points to have the hull and crew stripped seems like a sorry trade for 8 fighters.
Post by: Corbomite on October 23, 2003, 08:21:32 am
Post by: Mog on October 23, 2003, 08:50:36 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 23, 2003, 08:51:51 am
Quote:
BUMP because I'd really like this explained.
I'll explain it for you Corbo.
This is an SFB shiplist and thats how it is in SFB. IF you want a better answer than that you'll probably have to go to ADB's forum and ask Steve Cole. He answers posts over there.
Post by: Corbomite on October 23, 2003, 09:00:23 am
Quote:Quote:
BUMP because I'd really like this explained.
I'll explain it for you Corbo.
This is an SFB shiplist and thats how it is in SFB. IF you want a better answer than that you'll probably have to go to ADB's forum and ask Steve Cole. He answers posts over there.
Most of those ships are the Taldren ships. I was asking within the context of SFC. If the answer is a SFB one then I already know the answer and it, of course, does not apply here.
Post by: 762 on October 23, 2003, 09:18:12 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 23, 2003, 09:25:37 am
And yes I know this isn't SFB and it doesn't apply here. I'm just a historian trying the give you some information. I'm not saying it's right or it should be this way in sfc cause its like that in sfb. I'm just passing along information for those that may not know it. And no I don't want everything to be just like sfb.
Post by: Corbomite on October 23, 2003, 09:34:37 am
Quote:
Actually for a truer SFB answer I think you have to go to the text mentioning that the Star Cruiser matches up well against other races BCH's that'd be the CAZ and not the CCZ. the CAZ has 40 power right?? Maybe thats the reason the BCV only has 40 power. It's based off of the CA and not the CC which in SFB was considered a pocket DN
And yes I know this isn't SFB and it doesn't apply here. I'm just a historian trying the give you some information. I'm not saying it's right or it should be this way in sfc cause its like that in sfb. I'm just passing along information for those that may not know it. And no I don't want everything to be just like sfb.
That wouldn't explain the Mirak. Look I know the SFB answer, but combat effectiveness just doesn't translate all that well in SFC because many of the support mechanisms in SFB just are not there. If that is the answer then so be it, but it still does not make it relevant to SFC as you pointed out. I am begining to see the wisdom in many of Taldren's decisions concerning transfers of problematic races to SFC. It makes me very curious to see what an actual SFC Andromedan would have been like.
Post by: jimmi7769 on October 23, 2003, 10:25:58 am
Quote:Quote:
Actually for a truer SFB answer I think you have to go to the text mentioning that the Star Cruiser matches up well against other races BCH's that'd be the CAZ and not the CCZ. the CAZ has 40 power right?? Maybe thats the reason the BCV only has 40 power. It's based off of the CA and not the CC which in SFB was considered a pocket DN
And yes I know this isn't SFB and it doesn't apply here. I'm just a historian trying the give you some information. I'm not saying it's right or it should be this way in sfc cause its like that in sfb. I'm just passing along information for those that may not know it. And no I don't want everything to be just like sfb.
That wouldn't explain the Mirak. Look I know the SFB answer, but combat effectiveness just doesn't translate all that well in SFC because many of the support mechanisms in SFB just are not there. If that is the answer then so be it, but it still does not make it relevant to SFC as you pointed out. I am begining to see the wisdom in many of Taldren's decisions concerning transfers of problematic races to SFC. It makes me very curious to see what an actual SFC Andromedan would have been like.
You are correct, and this is why a pure SFB list is a little imbalanced. Somthing to keep in mind with the pure SFB approach is that SFB was created with a historacl perspective in mind. Kzinti didn't fight romulans that much and Lyrans didn't see too many Gorns. So a lot of the east vs west problems crop up more often in SFC play since we don't normally play the historical matchups anymore. And while the ISC did fight everyone they fought against a bunch of war worn fleets that really weren't up to the task.
And Yeah, the taldren Andys would have been interesting along with the Tholians. Oh well.
Post by: Strafer on November 01, 2003, 03:15:59 pm
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 03:08:27 pm
I could not find the problem mentioned in the following. I think Hypergol made an error or something.
Quote:
2) The captured Lyran ships (can't remember designations) both point ot the wrong model. The Panther CL points to the CA model instead of the CL model, and the Leopard DD points to the CL model instead of the DD model. Maybe I missed something funky here with the model paths, but I think there's something wrong with these.
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 03:54:15 pm
Quote:
3.1 is fabulous.
Models galore, goodness all around.
Just one question. Why did you change the Hydran fighters? The stock ones (model wise) were one of the prettier models I have ever seen.
Just thought I would mention that. If you aren't going to change them perhaps you should make them a little smaller? They look kinda huge right now. (when compared to the other fighters)
Also, is there ANY way you can get HYENA in the game?
Keep up the FABULOUS work! I am loving what I am seeing!
Ok. I shrunk the new Hydran fighter model. No biggie.
.. what's HYENA?
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 04:44:21 pm
Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 04:55:46 pm
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on November 04, 2003, 10:45:58 pm
Quote:
Ok. Up to date with fixes up to now. That includes the Z-DWDm and Z-CCXm errors reported in the D2 forum. Maverick needs to learn that it's OK to post in the General Forum.
Fixed as in ready for 3.2 or fixed as in d/l the 3.1 pack again?
Please advise.
KF
Post by: FireSoul on November 04, 2003, 11:31:55 pm
Quote:Quote:
Ok. Up to date with fixes up to now. That includes the Z-DWDm and Z-CCXm errors reported in the D2 forum. Maverick needs to learn that it's OK to post in the General Forum.
Fixed as in ready for 3.2 or fixed as in d/l the 3.1 pack again?
Please advise.
KF
For next version. 3.1 will remain 3.1..
Post by: Fluf on November 04, 2003, 11:51:05 pm
FS, I would still look at the SCS and make changes to it. It is SFB.
Also the DWDm you are fixing needed another 10 BPV bump as it was only 96BPV vs the 86 BPV of the DWD.
Also YFA on Z-DF+m needs pushed back to year 9 not 7, as per your comments that MIrv did not come out until 2272.
Also found Z-WDF or one of those smalller Wyn firgates didnt have any probes. Please check these ships.
Thanks for the work Firesoul. Great job.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on November 05, 2003, 12:00:54 am
Quote:
I could not find the problem mentioned in the following. I think Hypergol made an error or something.
It is possible I made an error.
The ships are K-LCL and K-LDD in the klingon section of the shiplist.
The K-LCL is pointing to the Lyan CA model, should be the Lyran Panther CL model.
The K-LDD is pointing to the Lyan CL model, should be a Lyran Leopard DD model.
These Lyran ships are the ones in the Klingon ship section. These are Lyran ships captured and used by the Klingons. Just making sure you realized what ships I was talking about.
I'll double check my findings.
Post by: FireSoul on November 05, 2003, 07:47:46 am
Quote:
Quote:
I could not find the problem mentioned in the following. I think Hypergol made an error or something.
It is possible I made an error.
The ships are K-LCL and K-LDD in the klingon section of the shiplist.
The K-LCL is pointing to the Lyan CA model, should be the Lyran Panther CL model.
The K-LDD is pointing to the Lyan CL model, should be a Lyran Leopard DD model.
These Lyran ships are the ones in the Klingon ship section. These are Lyran ships captured and used by the Klingons. Just making sure you realized what ships I was talking about.
I'll double check my findings.
Ah yes, the leftovers from SFC1... Thanks.
Post by: Bonk on November 24, 2003, 06:39:09 pm
Quote:
Copyrights
STAR TREK: Starfleet Command (R) Volume II - Orion Pirates Software (C) 2001 Interplay Entertainment Corp. All Rights Reserved. TM, (R), and (C) 2001 Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK (R) and related elements are trademarks of Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved. Some elements are based upon the board games created by Armadillo Design Bureau (C) 1977-2001. Taldren and the Taldren logo are trademarks of Taldren Inc. Exclusively licensed and distributed by Interplay Entertainment Corp. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners.
What's wrong with this picture? (From the license agreement page of the installer...)
Ok I know it's not an actual shiplist issue but I think it is worth correcting considering it was originally Taldren/Interplay's error (from the back of the CD case I assume?) and the motto of the OP+ shiplist: "Let's add what's missing from SFB...".
Just in case you weren't sure: Armadillos vs Amarillo Design Bureau ...
Sorry to 'nit-pick' but this one drives me nuts!
Post by: FireSoul on November 24, 2003, 07:22:02 pm
Post by: Rogue on November 24, 2003, 08:02:13 pm
Both specifications were introduced at the same time.
Post by: FireSoul on November 24, 2003, 08:43:40 pm
Next, some of those Snipes are Taldren inventions (appeared in stock shiplist and are not SFB-complient). Let's see.
R-SNA: Accurate
R-SNAR: Accurate, refitted SNA
R-SNB: Taldren version. 2 warps missing.
R-SNBB: My added real SNB.
R-SNBP: Some unknown invented ship with lotsa warp, and a missing PLaG.
R-SNE: Escort ship found in R4, ok.
R-SNP: Unknown and probably invented Police variant. 3 warps each side.
Analisys: leaving in the SNP won't do any harm, since it's got a single PLaG. However, the SNB should be replaced by the SNBB, but the introduction date is much later. The SNBP doesn't fit in: too much warp.
Post by: Rogue on November 24, 2003, 09:45:54 pm
Post by: FireSoul on November 24, 2003, 10:43:17 pm
.. in SFB, even if you just have a poor little impulse engine, you can do things called impulse TAC and such. A ship can turn and maneuver pretty fast, despite the fact its maximum speed is 1. Since SFC is a Real-time game, a speed 1 ship would not only be too slow to use, it also loses all and any advantages it may have had before.
ALSO..
These ships, The WB+ and the VUL+, they all have 1 thing in common: Plasma Rs. In fact, even in SFB, the PLaR can't be overloaded on the WB+ without a special trick with the batteries. This can't be done in SFC, so you can guess why it's so useful to have a bit more power to these ships. Of course, they also cost a bt more BPV for it.
This is why I would have to say these ships are made in "Taldren's style", and I want to preserve that style.
ie: The VUL+ is my addition (from module Y1), but is put together in a similar way to the WB+.
besides..
WB+ -> WE -> KE
VUL+ -> WVL --> KVL
Post by: Patchfur on November 25, 2003, 11:55:08 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on November 25, 2003, 12:21:09 pm
Quote:
First, I'd like to say that the WE and WB+ (.. and VUL+..) have been GIVEN warps, since they are not supposed to have any at ALL. Comparing them with anything else won't really apply here.
Next, some of those Snipes are Taldren inventions (appeared in stock shiplist and are not SFB-complient). Let's see.
R-SNA: Accurate
R-SNAR: Accurate, refitted SNA
R-SNB: Taldren version. 2 warps missing.
R-SNBB: My added real SNB.
R-SNBP: Some unknown invented ship with lotsa warp, and a missing PLaG.
R-SNE: Escort ship found in R4, ok.
R-SNP: Unknown and probably invented Police variant. 3 warps each side.
Analisys: leaving in the SNP won't do any harm, since it's got a single PLaG. However, the SNB should be replaced by the SNBB, but the introduction date is much later. The SNBP doesn't fit in: too much warp.
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Post by: FireSoul on November 25, 2003, 12:52:06 pm
Quote:
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Which module?
Post by: Rogue on November 25, 2003, 04:08:51 pm
On a side note I corrected the specs on the Snipe and will play it like you have shown. Thanks for the information FS.
Post by: jimmi7769 on November 25, 2003, 09:43:01 pm
Quote:Quote:
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Which module?
From here it looks like it's rule 42a in Advanced Missions
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc/R04-rom.html
Post by: FireSoul on November 26, 2003, 08:56:17 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Which module?
From here it looks like it's rule 42a in Advanced Missions
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc/R04-rom.html
That's the Rule number. If I knew which module it was it, I could then look for it with this rule number.
Post by: The Postman on November 26, 2003, 10:11:13 pm
|F-MON|USS Saracen
||USS Erebus
||USS Terror
||USS Marshall Soult
||USS Roberts
||USS Abercrombie
|F-MONS|USS Saracen
||USS Erebus
||USS Terror
||USS Marshall Soult
||USS Roberts
||USS Abercrombie
|F-MONV|USS Saracen
||USS Erebus
||USS Terror
||USS Marshall Soult
||USS Roberts
||USS Abercrombie
All of these names are based upon actual monitors in the British Navy. Besides Monitor already exists in the list as "1713 Monitor"
Post by: Rod O'neal on November 26, 2003, 10:27:45 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
The SNP was a real ship in SFB, it's a police variant of the standard Snipe-A the only difference being it didn't have a cloak which the Romulans thought was too valuable to risk on a Police ship.
Which module?
From here it looks like it's rule 42a in Advanced Missions
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc/R04-rom.html
That's the Rule number. If I knew which module it was it, I could then look for it with this rule number.
Advanced Missions. The rule simply states that the SNP is the police variant of the SNA. Same ship without the cloak. Uses the SNA SSD.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on November 27, 2003, 12:36:32 am
I was playing a convoy raid mission and the enemy was protecting 4 or 5 slavers.......but they just were'nt there?
Post by: Strafer on November 27, 2003, 01:59:15 am
Post by: TarMinyatur on November 27, 2003, 02:47:10 am
Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
So the starboard warp nacelle doesn't block the starboard wing phaser on this class? Interesting. So its full arc in SFC would be everthing except LF?
Post by: FireSoul on November 27, 2003, 07:58:09 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
So the starboard warp nacelle doesn't block the starboard wing phaser on this class? Interesting. So its full arc in SFC would be everthing except LF?
That arc, for the left side would be LS + D2.32's Arc..
355-0 + 0-210 + 270-330. .. or something like that. There's NOTHING in SFC that covers for all of that.
Post by: TarMinyatur on November 27, 2003, 10:38:25 am
Post by: FireSoul on November 27, 2003, 10:51:38 am
Quote:
I think regular wing arcs would be more representative of the weird SFB arc than LS/RS. Gaining another cross-deck firing phaser is more useful than covering a flank (which would be covered by the other side's wing phaser anyways).
Is it? I'll have to compare I guess.
Post by: jimmi7769 on November 27, 2003, 09:27:07 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
So the starboard warp nacelle doesn't block the starboard wing phaser on this class? Interesting. So its full arc in SFC would be everthing except LF?
As you can see from this model of an SFB F5 the wing phasers on an F5W would be located on those wing struts which would give then an LS/RS arc but not much more and definately not a D class hull wing arc for sure.
Post by: Jem on November 28, 2003, 01:14:25 pm
P.S. Thanks for your hard work on this FS, especially for putting in seperate F-BCH folders, I really appreciate it.
Post by: Pi-R on November 28, 2003, 02:49:41 pm
Thanks for this great mod. I however have a "small" question regarding the models of the TUGs. Not all TUGs are correctly represent by their model:
F-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
F-TUGc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
G-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
K-TGAc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
L-SRc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
L-SRc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
Z-TGTc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
Z-TGTc3 model has 2 pods instead of 3
R-SKHc1 uses original Taldren model with no pods
R-KRTc1 model has two pods instead of 1
As I have no SFB history, I have no idea how many pods the other tugs actually should have.
Do you have any plans to create matching models for these ships also. I tried kitbaching them but cannot load them in M6 editor. It is just something to make your mod more complete.
Post by: Strafer on November 28, 2003, 03:42:32 pm
Duplicate pods for tugs was deemed more of a space hog for what it was worth...
Post by: FireSoul on November 28, 2003, 05:08:34 pm
Quote:
Hi Firesoul,
Thanks for this great mod. I however have a "small" question regarding the models of the TUGs. Not all TUGs are correctly represent by their model:
F-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
F-TUGc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
G-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
K-TGAc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
L-SRc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
L-SRc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
Z-TGTc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
Z-TGTc3 model has 2 pods instead of 3
R-SKHc1 uses original Taldren model with no pods
R-KRTc1 model has two pods instead of 1
As I have no SFB history, I have no idea how many pods the other tugs actually should have.
Do you have any plans to create matching models for these ships also. I tried kitbaching them but cannot load them in M6 editor. It is just something to make your mod more complete.
This was intentional. The amount of work involved and the size of the installer were factors in having tugs with 0 or the basic # of pods.
Post by: FireSoul on November 30, 2003, 01:07:31 am
I've prepared models for ships I will be adding to OP+ for the next revision. The name? the Federation Express F-FDX and F-FXX.
Go See:
http://forums.taldren.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=222190&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on November 30, 2003, 01:43:52 am
Quote:
Hi Firesoul,
Thanks for this great mod. I however have a "small" question regarding the models of the TUGs. Not all TUGs are correctly represent by their model:
F-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
F-TUGc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
G-TUGc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
K-TGAc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
L-SRc2 model has only 1 pod instead of 2
L-SRc3 model has only 1 pod instead of 3
Z-TGTc1 model has 2 pods instead of 1
Z-TGTc3 model has 2 pods instead of 3
R-SKHc1 uses original Taldren model with no pods
R-KRTc1 model has two pods instead of 1
As I have no SFB history, I have no idea how many pods the other tugs actually should have.
Do you have any plans to create matching models for these ships also. I tried kitbaching them but cannot load them in M6 editor. It is just something to make your mod more complete.
I've given it some thought. Maybe I'll do 'em. We'll see. It'll take time if I do, and I have a lot of shiplist work to do too.
Post by: Pi-R on November 30, 2003, 06:19:52 am
Post by: TarMinyatur on November 30, 2003, 01:32:11 pm
There are some glaring exceptions:
Listed as a FF: F-HDW (0.67), K-F6 (0.67), R-KFR (0.67), L-PFW (0.67)
Listed as a CL: L-DD (0.5), F-DD (0.5), R-BH (0.5), H-LN (0.5), H-KN (0.5), F-NCA (1), F-NCM (1), G-CM (1), H-NCA's (1), K-D5W (1), L-NCA (1), Z-NCA (1)
Listed as a CA: G-CL (0.67), L-CL (0.67), F-BCE (1.25, a borderline DN), I-CAA (1.25, definitely not a DN)
Why does this matter? In some tournaments the terms will list "Light Cruisers" only. To most people this means anything in the Light Cruiser spacedock "box" or the lower right. To this day, I have arguments with people regarding the G-CL being a Heavy Cruiser. It is clearly a CL by any measure. So one could have a tourney situation in which a R-KFR would be allowed but a G-CLF would not. The same can be said of the F-DD line. A F-DD can't be taken as a Frigate, but a superior F-DW or F-HDW could.
Firesoul, maybe you can institute some level of conformity to this chaos. I see that the OP+3.1specs list the F-NCA as a Heavy Cruiser as it should be. So it appears you've done some adjustments on this issue.
Post by: FireSoul on November 30, 2003, 02:42:12 pm
.. it's not a bad idea. I could script detection out, and adjust as needed. At that point, I'll see how it turns out.
You see, sometimes things are as they are for a reason. For example, I ran out of space in a hull class, and would go over the 128 ships limit unless I reclassify the ships.
Post by: FireSoul on November 30, 2003, 04:48:29 pm
I figured I'd have a model for them before I have them in the shiplist.
http://forums.taldren.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=222376&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=
Post by: TarMinyatur on November 30, 2003, 06:31:54 pm
Quote:
Yes, Some but not all..
.. it's not a bad idea. I could script detection out, and adjust as needed. At that point, I'll see how it turns out.
You see, sometimes things are as they are for a reason. For example, I ran out of space in a hull class, and would go over the 128 ships limit unless I reclassify the ships.
Ugh, I didn't think of the 128 ship limit. Anyways, probably the more important ones to reassign are the NCA's, these being labeled "Light Cruisers" drives me nuts since they have 30 or 32 warp. This might free up some space for the HDW's in the CL slots. Thanks for considering this stuff.
Post by: Primus2003 on December 02, 2003, 09:21:17 am
Post by: FireSoul on December 02, 2003, 12:12:39 pm
Quote:
I had wondered why some ships seemed to get shifted around ie the miranda class to the CL instead of NCA type. Why is there 128 max in the prog? Does it cuase a game crash otherwise?
And I'll proably shift things around again, as much as I can, to fix a few things.
As for the 128.. well.. It used to be 64. I think it's like that Bill Gates thing, when he said that PCs would never need more than 640K of RAM.
Post by: Corbomite on December 02, 2003, 02:34:15 pm
We will never get the graphics of the firing arcs in the ship library like in SFC3 (a real shame), but I was wondering if info could be added to the written specs on the side in the library? Something like:
4 x Photon FA
8 x Phaser 1 FH (2) LS (3) RS (3)
2 x Phaser 3 LS (1) RS (1)
2 x Drone G 360
2 x AMD 6 360
I realize this could get lengthy for some ships, but there seems to be plenty of room on the screen. It might not be possible to do all of the ships or maybe not all of the weapons on a ship, but most should be doable if this is at all possible.
Post by: FireSoul on December 02, 2003, 02:41:41 pm
Quote:
This isn't as much a correction as a question.
We will never get the graphics of the firing arcs in the ship library like in SFC3 (a real shame), but I was wondering if info could be added to the written specs on the side in the library? Something like:
4 x Photon FA
8 x Phaser 1 FH (2) LS (3) RS (3)
2 x Phaser 3 LS (1) RS (1)
2 x Drone G 360
2 x AMD 6 360
I realize this could get lengthy for some ships, but there seems to be plenty of room on the screen. It might not be possible to do all of the ships or maybe not all of the weapons on a ship, but most should be doable if this is at all possible.
That would require changing the game itself. I believe SFC:OP's not going to recieve any new patches, so..
-- Luc
Post by: Corbomite on December 03, 2003, 04:48:59 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 03, 2003, 06:42:31 pm
Quote:
Don't know if this has been brought up yet, but the KDR/KDP pointers are pointing to the SNA model not the D5 model. Also I noticed in the stock shiplist that the KDR/KDP ships do not have the rear boom arcs and not all of the klingon D5 types to either. In OP+ I noticed that the KDR/KDP ship did have these arcs. Did you correct all of these or is something screwy going on here.
Thanks for the models mistake. No models pack, right? My error.
As for the boom arcs, yes: I spent time fixing these.
Post by: FireSoul on December 04, 2003, 09:40:37 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Do the Klingon F5W and FWK have true wing arcs instead of LS/RS for the Ph-3's?
The FWC and FWL have LS/RS Ph-1's which seem strange too. Perhaps these ought to use wing arcs.
Hm. These ships would need a NEW arc, which would mix both the LS/RS and the Wing arcs. (see footnote)
I'll leavfe them to the more useful LS/RS for now.
So the starboard warp nacelle doesn't block the starboard wing phaser on this class? Interesting. So its full arc in SFC would be everthing except LF?
As you can see from this model of an SFB F5 the wing phasers on an F5W would be located on those wing struts which would give then an LS/RS arc but not much more and definately not a D class hull wing arc for sure.
I think I'll leave them as LS/RS... Its still the closest arc in my mind. Also, this pic helped.
Post by: FireSoul on December 17, 2003, 09:54:07 am
OP+ 3.2 is well on its way. I've decided to post about the slow progress and let people know where I'm at.
But first some news. I'm back to work. I've been 'off' for 9 months, which allowed for many of the leaps and bounds of shiplist and mod releases I've done in the last year. Now, it's much slower. Of course, things like nights out (hmm.. LoTR:RoTK, anyone?) and xmas (ugh) will take a chunk of my time too.
Ok.. Here's what I've done so far in the OP+ 3.2 project (dubed "3.2", of course):
1- fighterless casual carriers:
In SFB, all carriers are shown with just its base BPV. Unless noted otherwise, fighters are *extra*. Of course, it doesn't make sense to have a dedicated carrier without fighters, but it *does* make sense to allow not having to pay for them if it's optional. This affects many Hydran ships, as well as some others through the shiplist. These ships will be recognizable by the 'n' appended at the end of the ship designation.
These ships will be marked as "R"estricted. These ships shouldn't appear on the D2 since that's not how it works for there.
ie:
The stock shiplist's H-SUI (a Taldren invention) costs 161 BPV.
The OP+ H-SUI costs 167 BPV (stock fighter price leveled with other races).
The OP+ 3.2 H-SUIn will cost 155 BPV and will have no fighters. Nothing is put in place to replace the fighters. The fighters are just not there: the player simply didn't pay for them.
2- Hullclass and Hulltype reclassifications
I reclassified ships into their appropriate lists based on their weight (without pods) and # of engines. No, not BPV. Affected are many ships throughout the shiplist.
ie: Simple relocation example: F-NCM
The F-NCM was listed as "NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER" within the CL list. It has a movement cost of 1 and ~30 warps. I've moved it to the CA list with the other NCAs.
ie: Major adjustment example: HDWs.
The HDWs were listed as "WAR_DESTROYER" mostly within the FF list. They have a movement cost of 2/3 and ~24 warps. I've moved them to the CL list, reclassifying them as "LIGHT_CRUISER". They are, after all, heavier than a WAR_DESTROYER.
3- More freighters for all races.
- repair freighters (large and small)
- exploration freighters (large and small)
- troop transport freighters (large and small)
4- all freighters for pirates too. I've never heard of illegal operations that didn't have some legal front with legitimate operations.
5- civilian freighters for all races. (with new model)
- Free Traders (for everyone)
- Free Traitors (for pirates)
- Free Trooper and Tanker (Marines-related units)
6- A few fun additions, such as the Federation Express
7- System Activity Maintenance Stations (SAMS)
- With various modules installed (Hospital, VIP quarters, cargo, sciences, etc..)
Think as these as small platform stations. These are also used as a kind of listening post in far away systems where other tasks are needed, such as a research station above a planet.
(with new platform model)
8- Commercial Platforms (CPL)
These are similar to the SAMS, but plainer and simply built.
(with new platform model)
9- Recently advised fighter corrections.
Some ISC .III fighters come out before the .II fighters. Dates have been fixed.
From:
Code:
I-Restitution.II 11
I-Writ.II 15
I-Tort.II 17
I-Caveat.II 17
I-Restitution.III 15
I-Writ.III 11
I-Tort.III 11
I-Caveat.III 15
To:
Code:
I-Restitution.II 11
I-Writ.II 11
I-Tort.II 15
I-Caveat.II 15
I-Restitution.III 15
I-Writ.III 15
I-Tort.III 17
I-Caveat.III 17
10- I'm sure there were other corrections.
EDIT: (I forgot this)
11- X1 and X2 Bases.
In some cases, I had to more or less feel my way around in the dark to create proper bases for all races in X1 and X2 era. I just didn't seem right that all races had bases of all kinds from beginning to late era, then when Advanced arrives, all's there is a X2-style SBX.
Well. I renamed all the SBX to XSBs and added the following:
- BSX - X1 base stations
- BSXF(or P) - with Fighters/PFs.
- XBS
- XBSF/P
- BTX
- BTXF/P
- XBT
- XBTF/P
- SBX
- SBXF/P
- XSBF/P
With all the above things, that brings the shiplist to.. .. get this... .. 5248 shiplist entries. (OP+ 3.1 has 4140 entries).
--== TODO ==--
1- Civilian Base Stations
2- Armed Priority Transports and variants (needs a new model)
3- MBs (Mobile Bases aka "Modular Bases" as I'll call them for clarity)
4- Models for Tugs with various number of pods to be completed
As you can see, I'm still gonna be busy. However this should give you an idea of what's gonna be in OP+ 3.2. There aren't any new player-oriented ships except for the "n" variants. However, all these other units should allow any single and multiplayer D2 environments to flourish better. Also, many of these added elements are going to be for scripters to handle and manage.
Later. Gotta work.
-- Luc
Edit: Forgot the hull reclassifications. Added.
Edit2: Forgot the X bases!
Post by: 762 on December 17, 2003, 01:12:23 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 17, 2003, 01:44:26 pm
Quote:
Thanks for doing those "n" variants FS!
Just for you, man.. and you know it.
Post by: 762 on December 17, 2003, 01:55:08 pm
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Post by: ChrsLWlstr on December 17, 2003, 04:55:47 pm
Quote:
And all the other Hydrans on GSA.
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Seems as if we're an endangered species...
Post by: K_hunt on December 18, 2003, 03:01:52 pm
Quote:Quote:
And all the other Hydrans on GSA.
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Seems as if we're an endangered species...
Shhhsshhhh!!! Don't let the Lyrans hear that!
BTW, the Hydrans were alive and kicking on SS2 Chris. You missed a heck of a war.
Post by: 762 on December 18, 2003, 04:30:57 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on December 19, 2003, 11:05:29 am
Quote:
Looks like the S-SLV1 (Syndicate Slaver?) does not point to a model. Model link problem? Causes crash to desktop. You see nothing but the redicle where the model should be.
I was playing a convoy raid mission and the enemy was protecting 4 or 5 slavers.......but they just were'nt there?
Firesoul, did you see this post on page 5 about the Syndicate Slaver?
Post by: FireSoul on December 19, 2003, 11:51:15 am
Quote:
Quote:
Looks like the S-SLV1 (Syndicate Slaver?) does not point to a model. Model link problem? Causes crash to desktop. You see nothing but the redicle where the model should be.
I was playing a convoy raid mission and the enemy was protecting 4 or 5 slavers.......but they just were'nt there?
Firesoul, did you see this post on page 5 about the Syndicate Slaver?
Yes. Is fixed for next version too.
.. I don't want to do a temporary fix EXE because I want to leave Assets/Models alone. The manual quickfix is:
copy opplus/models/pslv/ directory to assets/models. This will fix this OP+ 3.1 problem.
Post by: 762 on December 19, 2003, 02:41:53 pm
Are the model pointers for 3.2 the same as 3.0?
Post by: FireSoul on December 19, 2003, 03:04:36 pm
Quote:
FS, a quick DIP-related question if I may.
Are the model pointers for 3.2 the same as 3.0?
There will be differences. More models.. or "refactored" models.. (if I ever get my ass going and start doing models with various number of pods).
.. and some model renames too, for readability.
So, will 'yes' be enough as an answer?
Post by: 762 on December 19, 2003, 04:18:01 pm
Hope that makes sense.
Post by: FireSoul on December 19, 2003, 04:25:50 pm
ie: fedd (Early Fed DD) --> stays same
ie: fdd+ (Fed DD with TMP warps) -> I think I'll rename it to just fdd. I have done any of this yet.
.. I can't tell you what or where yet.. so: sorry, You'll have to find out at the release.
Post by: 762 on December 19, 2003, 04:43:40 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 20, 2003, 03:56:46 pm
1- Romulan Monitors are supposed to be able to cloak. Vicious slow things, eh?
2- Been asked to place the maulers in more appropriate places in the shiplist, closer to their hull class.
Post by: SSCF_LeRoy on December 20, 2003, 04:56:34 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 20, 2003, 05:02:59 pm
Quote:
Speaking of monitors, what are they and what are they good for?
Monitors are primarily System defense and presence units. They are often assigned for defense of a colonized planet and such.
Also.. (and this is the cool historical part), they are part of the process of building a base.
1- Send a Monitor. Establish a presence.
2- send Tugs with the sections (pods) needed to build a modular base. (SFB's Mobile Base)
3- build the modular base.
4- later on, upgrade the base into a BS (Base Station)
5- BS -> BATS
6- BATS -> SB..
Post by: SSCF_LeRoy on December 20, 2003, 05:18:37 pm
Quote:
Monitors are primarily System defense and presence units. They are often assigned for defense of a colonized planet and such.
What makes them better at doing this than a cruiser? (I'm talkin' about a standard workhorse vessel. Nothing fancy here)
Post by: 762 on December 20, 2003, 05:22:11 pm
Of course they are much cheaper to build than a dread.
Post by: SSCF_LeRoy on December 20, 2003, 05:42:39 pm
Post by: FireSoul on December 20, 2003, 05:50:30 pm
Quote:
Basically a mobile base of command?
Not quite. They are defenders. They are geared and designed for defense. While it's true a cruiser could do the same job, not so for periods to up-to months at a time. That would be a waste of a cruiser.
Post by: SSCF_LeRoy on December 20, 2003, 05:57:59 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on December 24, 2003, 12:07:42 pm
If I were to use the 3.2 installer and then put an older 3.0 based shiplist in place would all of the model pointers have somewhere to point??
Are all of the model folders you put into place for the 3.0 list still in the 3.2 release with just more additional models or did you remove some model folders and replace them with new ones??
Post by: FireSoul on December 24, 2003, 12:37:30 pm
Quote:
Another question on the same topic as 762:
If I were to use the 3.2 installer and then put an older 3.0 based shiplist in place would all of the model pointers have somewhere to point??
Are all of the model folders you put into place for the 3.0 list still in the 3.2 release with just more additional models or did you remove some model folders and replace them with new ones??
I thought I was clear, but ok.. once more from scratch:
This isn't gonna be plug-and-play. There are changes. The models dirs ARE different because of more splits between models, and some renames (for style cleanup).
No, you don't just replace the models.
-- Luc
Post by: Rogue on January 03, 2004, 05:11:18 pm
Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?
Post by: FireSoul on January 04, 2004, 02:34:40 am
Quote:
Firesoul, I have a question for you concerning the differences between the Kzinti CCX and CCXm. There is a huge difference between the two with the m suffix seeming to indicate a mirv refit of the CCX. The CCX is equiped with 4 M racks that are removed with the m refit, among other changes, and only graced with a single M rack. Is this correct??? Just wondering here as the CCX is a much more deadly war ship.
The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?
Quote:
Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?
Oddity.
Post by: Rogue on January 04, 2004, 08:17:30 am
Quote:
The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?
Hmmm, well... ya it was Taldrens. However, the BPV for the CCX is 237 and for the m-refit it goes for 157 in OP+. I'll update my specifications. Shoot, they couldn't be more cut and paste. A little this, a litlle that and a lot of OP+...
Quote:
Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?
Oddity.
OK, I like odd stuff. Thank ya.
Post by: FireSoul on January 04, 2004, 08:56:05 am
Quote:Quote:
The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?
Hmmm, well... ya it was Taldrens. However, the BPV for the CCX is 237 and for the m-refit it goes for 157 in OP+. I'll update my specifications. Shoot, they couldn't be more cut and paste. A little this, a litlle that and a lot of OP+...
That BPV error is known, and has been pointed out to me many times before.. It's supposed to be 257 with the m variant.
Post by: Rogue on January 04, 2004, 09:51:03 am
Undoubtably this will pop up again. What worked pretty well for me was folding that lone A rack into the B racks and moving the ADD back over to the heavy weapons slot. perhaps not as accurate as possible but it solved the BPV value without changing the function much. Thanks for your reply and the OP+ list. It adds a lot of fun stuff so no complaining here.Peace bro.
Post by: Corbomite on January 04, 2004, 01:45:47 pm
Post by: FireSoul on January 04, 2004, 04:44:32 pm
Quote:
FS, can you tell me how much BPV a B Drone Rack, an AMD 6 and an AMD 12 add to a ship (respectively) please?
That's a good one. I don't know the exact values, myself. I had to estimate the values based on the orion optionmount charts in the appendix as well as some refits costs when some weapons are added. Also, the number of reloads available due to era ALSO affects the BPV.
For example, I know that replacing a A-rack by a B-rack while keeping the same number of reloads (1?) increases the cost by 1 BPV. The Y175 upgrades increase the reloads by one, and I know that replacing a A rack with 1 reload to a B rack with 2 reloads costs about 1.5 BPV. (costs 2 BPV with a single rack, 3 for 2 racks).
I also know that upgrading a ADD6 to a ADD12 costs about the same: 1 BPV per rack or 1.5 per rack when increasing reloads (based on refit costs).
Extrapolation:
I have evidence from Module R2 that a A-rack costs 4 BPV each. (Z-FH, p51 minus shield refit for same shields with Z-SDF, p65). I have evidence that installing a ADD6 costs 2 BPV based on the books. (K-D6S has shield+ADD6 refit for 6 BPV. Same shield refit but no added ADD6 refit on D6D cost 4)
So:
ADD6: 2 BPV
ADD12:: 3 BPV.
DroA: 4 BPV (1 reload)
DroB: 5 or 6 BPV based on # of reloads.
Post by: Corbomite on January 04, 2004, 04:56:00 pm
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on January 05, 2004, 07:52:56 am
I know this sounds like an odd request, but I'm trying to figure out the Nullsoft installer, and would like to look at your scripts for the OP+ no models installer.
It's for the DIP project if your wondering why I'm asking...
You could send the scripts to the e-mail address in my profile.
Thanks for the consideration / assistance...
Post by: FireSoul on January 05, 2004, 08:10:05 am
Quote:
Firesoul;
I know this sounds like an odd request, but I'm trying to figure out the Nullsoft installer, and would like to look at your scripts for the OP+ no models installer.
It's for the DIP project if your wondering why I'm asking...
You could send the scripts to the e-mail address in my profile.
Thanks for the consideration / assistance...
I'm very relunctant to share my installer config files. These are the last things left in OP+ that I haven't shared with other people and projects that is really mine. What is it you need, anyways?
Post by: Fluf on January 05, 2004, 12:42:11 pm
I can understand your reluctance to release these config files to him, as you put alot of work into it. However, it would be a big help to us in the DIP so we can get our project moving.
Post by: FireSoul on January 05, 2004, 01:44:17 pm
Quote:
Firesoul, Julin is attempting to make the DIP shiplist installer for us. He normally used batch files in the past servers he worked on for me, but wants to use the Nullsoft installer instead for ease of use for the players. Im sure he just wants to see how you configured some of your files, to cut some time down on the learning curve for the installer. Currently the DIP shiplist is using the OP+3.0 installer, since the shiplist is based on the SS2 shiplist. However, we want to make and independant installer, as we dont want to use your past work for our installer, as there will be constant updates and changes to our shiplist as time goes on.
I can understand your reluctance to release these config files to him, as you put alot of work into it. However, it would be a big help to us in the DIP so we can get our project moving.
Well..
.. I'm going to make a demand in exchange: put me and my works in the credits. So far, it's obvious that it's my work being used as a starting point for the DIP because you're still using my installer. Last thing I want is to be forgotten after having spent hundreds of hours on the whole thing.
If that's all right, sure. I'll send you the installer files for both the models and non-models versions of OP+ 3.0.
Post by: Strafer on January 05, 2004, 02:06:38 pm
Quote:
...after having spent hundreds of hours on the whole thing.
"Hundreds"?
More like a coupla thousand by my math.
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on January 05, 2004, 02:24:27 pm
Quote:Quote:
Firesoul, Julin is attempting to make the DIP shiplist installer for us. He normally used batch files in the past servers he worked on for me, but wants to use the Nullsoft installer instead for ease of use for the players. Im sure he just wants to see how you configured some of your files, to cut some time down on the learning curve for the installer. Currently the DIP shiplist is using the OP+3.0 installer, since the shiplist is based on the SS2 shiplist. However, we want to make and independant installer, as we dont want to use your past work for our installer, as there will be constant updates and changes to our shiplist as time goes on.
I can understand your reluctance to release these config files to him, as you put alot of work into it. However, it would be a big help to us in the DIP so we can get our project moving.
Well..
.. I'm going to make a demand in exchange: put me and my works in the credits. So far, it's obvious that it's my work being used as a starting point for the DIP because you're still using my installer. Last thing I want is to be forgotten after having spent hundreds of hours on the whole thing.
If that's all right, sure. I'll send you the installer files for both the models and non-models versions of OP+ 3.0.
No problem. Your name needed to show up anyway as the current shiplist is based off the 3.0 work...
I'll just add the installer help to that byline...
Post by: FireSoul on January 05, 2004, 02:40:02 pm
Quote:
No problem. Your name needed to show up anyway as the current shiplist is based off the 3.0 work...
In that case, email sent to Julin. Please don't distribute.
Edit: Curiosity: what about all the people I give credits to, myself? For all the models and such.. Is there something planned for those?
Post by: jimmi7769 on January 05, 2004, 02:57:13 pm
Quote:Quote:
Edit: Curiosity: what about all the people I give credits to, myself? For all the models and such.. Is there something planned for those?
We aren't going to have two different installers just the one without the models. so that won't be necessary. Unless there were others working on your shiplist and in that case just send Julin the proper credits and they'll be there.
Post by: FireSoul on January 05, 2004, 03:01:48 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Edit: Curiosity: what about all the people I give credits to, myself? For all the models and such.. Is there something planned for those?
We aren't going to have two different installers just the one without the models. so that won't be necessary. Unless there were others working on your shiplist and in that case just send Julin the proper credits and they'll be there.
You'll have a no-models version only? That sucks..
Well, there's been a few people who's helped me in the past. I've taken in shiplist tidbits from people like TarMinyatur.. .. and I there was someone else. I don't remember who, though.
..and Strafer did some shiplist entries himself a bit way back when because he really wanted to see some ships come up. He's the only other person who actively worked on OP+ at some point or other.
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on January 05, 2004, 08:02:33 pm
Will not re-send without your permission...
Post by: Corbomite on January 05, 2004, 11:07:46 pm
Quote:
That's a good one. I don't know the exact values, myself. I had to estimate the values based on the orion optionmount charts in the appendix as well as some refits costs when some weapons are added. Also, the number of reloads available due to era ALSO affects the BPV.
You know this struck me after awhile as odd. Are you using Annex #8B - Orion Pirate Optional Weapons Cost Chart or the old Annex #6A - Ship Modification Cost Chart (SFB Commander's Rulebook Vol. III, 1985)?
Post by: FireSoul on January 06, 2004, 01:00:10 am
Quote:Quote:
That's a good one. I don't know the exact values, myself. I had to estimate the values based on the orion optionmount charts in the appendix as well as some refits costs when some weapons are added. Also, the number of reloads available due to era ALSO affects the BPV.
You know this struck me after awhile as odd. Are you using Annex #8B - Orion Pirate Optional Weapons Cost Chart or the old Annex #6A - Ship Modification Cost Chart (SFB Commander's Rulebook Vol. III, 1985)?
In this context I meant #8B, although I did not give you the values from that this time.
Post by: Corbomite on January 06, 2004, 09:52:52 am
Post by: FireSoul on January 06, 2004, 11:03:39 am
Quote:
Do you need the old 6A?
Someone gave me an old Commander's Edition rulebook, although I never bothered to look in it. I mean, c'mon. It dates from the days I was 10 years old and was watching Transformers (Gen 1, of course) on TV!
.. but maybe I'll gander a look-see now..
Post by: Corbomite on January 06, 2004, 12:44:34 pm
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on January 17, 2004, 11:56:34 pm
The F-FFG is using the model ..OPPLUS/MODELS/FFF/FFF.MOD, but models .siz has no entry for that; allowing the modelers scaling to take over. When you use Moonraker's Okinawa Class Destroyer... Well, she looks about twice the size of her FFL wing.
BTW: with the soon to be launched OP+ 3.2, am I wasting my time getting my OP+ models set to taste, or will there be no changes to the models?
Post by: FireSoul on January 18, 2004, 01:56:12 am
Quote:
Long thread, and I don't know if it's come up, but...
The F-FFG is using the model ..OPPLUS/MODELS/FFF/FFF.MOD, but models .siz has no entry for that; allowing the modelers scaling to take over. When you use Moonraker's Okinawa Class Destroyer... Well, she looks about twice the size of her FFL wing.
Yeah. fixed already for 3.2... I wrote some perl thingy that compares the contents of the installer with the shiplist, the models dir, and the model.siz.. then the model.siz with the shiplist and the installer, as well as the models directory.. etc.
Quote:
BTW: with the soon to be launched OP+ 3.2, am I wasting my time getting my OP+ models set to taste, or will there be no changes to the models?
There will be some changes. I suggest you back up your current opplus/models to another location, uninstall OP+ 3.1, install 3.2, and then restore the models you'll need. Most of the updates I've done are renames (smoothing it out from this side), but mostly addtions.
Post by: FireSoul on January 18, 2004, 06:16:51 am
For the release notice of OP+ 3.2, go see: http://forums.taldren.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=251777&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=
If you have needs of a corrections thread for 3.2, please start a new thread.
-- Luc