Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => General Starfleet Command Forum => Topic started by: FireSoul on August 12, 2004, 03:31:27 pm
-
Use this thread to post corrections for problems noticed in OP+ 3.4.
I'll start:
Some (useless) ships have disapeared?
G-APT (Armed Priority Transport) removed.
G-APX (Armed Priority Transport) removed.
C-MBG (MB w/ Commando Aug Modules) removed.
C-MBV (MB w/ Hangar Aug Modules) removed.
Need to reimport them from OP+ 3.3 or something.
-- Luc
-
Did some moderator move this thread here?
Why? It has nothing to do with the D2.
-
Yeah, but I had planned on using those ships on the D2 in 'special missions' Hrmmm. Mb I am a secret admin mb and moved the thread here so I can make a shameless plug for dizzy missions??? Muhahahahaha!
-
Not really a Correction, but could you combine the C-Racks on the Z-DWD to one harpoint?
Oh, and the Casual PFT refits are too cheap :P
-
Not really a Correction, but could you combine the C-Racks on the Z-DWD to one harpoint?
Oh, and the Casual PFT refits are too cheap :P
Don't do it FS
I think it's a trick...
-
Not really a Correction, but could you combine the C-Racks on the Z-DWD to one harpoint?
Oh, and the Casual PFT refits are too cheap :P
Don't do it FS
I think it's a trick...
It's not a trick. The casual PFTs *are* cheaper than they should be. However, I don't intend to change how things are done right now since INTs (and PFs) are dumb too. ;)
-
Yes put the 2 Cracks together in the lowest numbered drone hardpoint like on the other ships please.
-
Are there any others, chuut?
-
This what I have in mind for mini installers.This to update the current shiplist and for those wanting just plain combatants ships make an installer.Those that want the combatants as well as the tugs make that an installer.Then is it possible to patch it up with just a new shiplist.This to cut down in the amount of ships in the shiplist and makes it easier for 56kers.I like personable like all the combatants ships in the list but not the tugs.I never see them is the shipyard and don't use them in a skirmish.If you made mini installer or patches that gave them tugs and cgs all separate think how many hints you would have on your site for DLing.
EG.3.4 Combatants only
3.4 Combatants with Tugs
3.4 Combatants with Tug &CGs.
3.4 Tugs patch
3.4 CGs patch.
I know it may seem like a lot of work but think of all the hits that you will have from
your site.This a good thing in the modding world.
-
Yes put the 2 Cracks together in the lowest numbered drone hardpoint like on the other ships please.
It isn't as important with drones, since they take no power, but I've always been keen to seperate as many weapons as possible. (Especially photons.) It gives the captain more options for power and expendature management.
What is your motivation for wanting the racks combined? Have you noticed a difference in the way the ship takes damage?
-S'Cipio
-
Scip, it's so that they can start a scatterpack, then cancel it, to fill up the C racks from the single firing racks.
-
It isn't as important with drones, since they take no power, but I've always been keen to seperate as many weapons as possible. (Especially photons.) It gives the captain more options for power and expendature management.
-S'Cipio
2 Photons per hardpoint is perfect, this is the main reason I prefer the F-DNH to the F-DNHadd.
-
I always compine my racks but only the G racks on Fed. ships.This is so that I can set it to one hot key and I can tell how missles are left.I have it set on 4.
-
I got a NCV on the GW server and noticed I could get INT fighters in it. I bought some (expensive buggers), but when I launched them in a game, nothing appeared.
Didn't crash the game or anything, but nothing appeared, and the invisible ships didn't seem to shoot at anything either. There was also nothing to target. They showed on the fighter panel as launched, but no ship or anything beyond that appeard.
-Strat
-
I got a NCV on the GW server and noticed I could get INT fighters in it. I bought some (expensive buggers), but when I launched them in a game, nothing appeared.
Didn't crash the game or anything, but nothing appeared, and the invisible ships didn't seem to shoot at anything either. There was also nothing to target. They showed on the fighter panel as launched, but no ship or anything beyond that appeard.
-Strat
This is NOT an OP+ issue. The INTs are PFs, will only work in GW3, and will only work on the F-NPF PF tender which is actually a Gorn ship.
-
Bump
-
:-\
Why is the D5XD only listed as 189 BPV when it's correct price is 310?
And why does it still have overloaded phasers when overloads were removed from SFB a long time ago?
And why, if the D5XD is in the shiplist is the Kzinti CMDX not?
-
:-\
Why is the D5XD only listed as 189 BPV when it's correct price is 310?
I don't actually own the SSD. This data coulda been lost over time.
And why does it still have overloaded phasers when overloads were removed from SFB a long time ago?
To remain competitive with the Advanced ships. Ideally, that entire portion of the shiplist needs to be fleshed out, but I have no material to do so.
And why, if the D5XD is in the shiplist is the Kzinti CMDX not?
Because I don't have the CMDX. Oh, thank you for sending it to me. Muahahaha!
-
FireSoul you didn't answer my question yet it is theyou told me to post in here.It is a few post down Aug.27,04
-
FireSoul you didn't answer my question yet it is theyou told me to post in here.It is a few post down Aug.27,04
You're right. I didn't.
No, I'm not going to maintain 4 shiplists, or many multiple downloads. That's asking too much of me.
-
Good news. I now have proof for year of availability of the klingon refits:
Klingon refits:
- B: Y165
- K: Y169
- R: Y175
Also, a strong indicator for Fed refits:
Federation refits:
- + (ph3 and drone) refit: Y165
- AWR refit: Y170
- R: Y175
Romulan:
+ (shield) refit: Y174
Gorn:
+ refit (ph3): Y170
Lyran:
Mech Links: Y178
PowerPack: Y177
This is based on data in module R9, shown for some conjectural ships. I'll see what I can do with some scripting to detect this data in OP+.
-- Luc
-
FireSoul you didn't answer my question yet it is theyou told me to post in here.It is a few post down Aug.27,04
You're right. I didn't.
No, I'm not going to maintain 4 shiplists, or many multiple downloads. That's asking too much of me.
Then can you make two one without the Tugs and one with the Tugs.It will make for a smaller download or put less Tugs in the shiplist.I would say 4 per class eg FF,DD,CL,CA etc. think about it.
-
Also, a strong indicator for Fed refits:
Federation refits:
- + (ph3 and drone) refit: Y165
- AWR refit: Y170
- R: Y175
-- Luc
AWR in 170, the APR refit still came in 2265. Point is moot for SFC.
-
FireSoul you didn't answer my question yet it is theyou told me to post in here.It is a few post down Aug.27,04
You're right. I didn't.
No, I'm not going to maintain 4 shiplists, or many multiple downloads. That's asking too much of me.
Then can you make two one without the Tugs and one with the Tugs.It will make for a smaller download or put less Tugs in the shiplist.I would say 4 per class eg FF,DD,CL,CA etc. think about it.
I'm not maintaining 2 mods. Just 1. This is a strong personal 'no'.
-
Also, a strong indicator for Fed refits:
Federation refits:
- + (ph3 and drone) refit: Y165
- AWR refit: Y170
- R: Y175
-- Luc
AWR in 170, the APR refit still came in 2265. Point is moot for SFC.
Right.
-
Also, a strong indicator for Fed refits:
Federation refits:
- + (ph3 and drone) refit: Y165
- AWR refit: Y170
- R: Y175
-- Luc
AWR in 170, the APR refit still came in 2265. Point is moot for SFC.
Right.
Back to the point, I've thought for years that the K-Refit out way too late.
Anyway you can "justify" releasing the D7L earlier like 2270? it is silly that that refit comes out the same year as the D7W and I swear i've seen the D7L in scenarios before 2275. A 2270 D7L fits nicely with the klingon Racial Enemies the Hydrans and Mirak as the Hydrans get the type II fighters in 2270 and the Kzin CC with Fast drones owns the D7C.
-
Also, a strong indicator for Fed refits:
Federation refits:
- + (ph3 and drone) refit: Y165
- AWR refit: Y170
- R: Y175
-- Luc
AWR in 170, the APR refit still came in 2265. Point is moot for SFC.
Right.
Back to the point, I've thought for years that the K-Refit out way too late.
Anyway you can "justify" releasing the D7L earlier like 2270? it is silly that that refit comes out the same year as the D7W and I swear i've seen the D7L in scenarios before 2275. A 2270 D7L fits nicely with the klingon Racial Enemies the Hydrans and Mirak as the Hydrans get the type II fighters in 2270 and the Kzin CC with Fast drones owns the D7C.
That was the point, here. I have actual data as to when some refits come out. Now, what's the YIS aka SFB YFA for the D7L? I intend to maintain a balance and have more truthful YFA for ships based on this new data.
-
Also, a strong indicator for Fed refits:
Federation refits:
- + (ph3 and drone) refit: Y165
- AWR refit: Y170
- R: Y175
-- Luc
AWR in 170, the APR refit still came in 2265. Point is moot for SFC.
Right.
Back to the point, I've thought for years that the K-Refit out way too late.
Anyway you can "justify" releasing the D7L earlier like 2270? it is silly that that refit comes out the same year as the D7W and I swear i've seen the D7L in scenarios before 2275. A 2270 D7L fits nicely with the klingon Racial Enemies the Hydrans and Mirak as the Hydrans get the type II fighters in 2270 and the Kzin CC with Fast drones owns the D7C.
This wouldn't be the original Taldren shiplist would it.
-
Consider it.. a doable correction.
-
Firesoul;
I was just going through the OP3.4 shiplist.
First, I would like to say "Great work". :notworthy: :notworthy:
One of the things that I was always fixing in the shiplists (for my own personal use) was the reduction in tractors on the D7C and D7L from 5 to 3 (removal of the SFB mech links). I see you made this correction in Version 3.4. KUDOS!!! :thumbsup:
I do, however, have a question about the Fed CVS and CVB (this is a question since I don't have a SSD for the CVB). What is the difference between these ships? In the shiplist, these ships are virtually identical. :-\
I would have expected the CVB, in SFB fashion, to have the 4 foward P1's and enhanced shielding of Fed CB.
Thoughts?
-
Firesoul;
I was just going through the OP3.4 shiplist.
First, I would like to say "Great work". :notworthy: :notworthy:
One of the things that I was always fixing in the shiplists (for my own personal use) was the reduction in tractors on the D7C and D7L from 5 to 3 (removal of the SFB mech links). I see you made this correction in Version 3.4. KUDOS!!! :thumbsup:
I do, however, have a question about the Fed CVS and CVB (this is a question since I don't have a SSD for the CVB). What is the difference between these ships? In the shiplist, these ships are virtually identical. :-\
I would have expected the CVB, in SFB fashion, to have the 4 foward P1's and enhanced shielding of Fed CB.
Thoughts?
Ugh. Jeez. Check out rule R2.29 and R2.29B in Advanced Missions. It's the *same* ship with different fighter loadouts. Remember that in SFB, the fighter loadouts don't just change from one ship to another.
I think I'll get rid of the CVB now...
-- Luc
-
Firesoul;
I was just going through the OP3.4 shiplist.
First, I would like to say "Great work". :notworthy: :notworthy:
One of the things that I was always fixing in the shiplists (for my own personal use) was the reduction in tractors on the D7C and D7L from 5 to 3 (removal of the SFB mech links). I see you made this correction in Version 3.4. KUDOS!!! :thumbsup:
I do, however, have a question about the Fed CVS and CVB (this is a question since I don't have a SSD for the CVB). What is the difference between these ships? In the shiplist, these ships are virtually identical. :-\
I would have expected the CVB, in SFB fashion, to have the 4 foward P1's and enhanced shielding of Fed CB.
Thoughts?
I would like to know why the F-CVB has only 34 power instead of 35 that is what it was in Taldrens shiplist and is it possiblt yo make it 36.That woud even it out.
-
I would like to know why the F-CVB has only 34 power instead of 35 that is what it was in Taldrens shiplist and is it possiblt yo make it 36.That woud even it out.
Age,
I confirm That the F-CVS has 34 power: 30 warp and 4 impulses.
-- FireSoul
-
Hey FS, does this mean we can get rid of a bunch of other bad Taldren Ideas to like you me and Brezz were talking the other night? ;D
PS. The F-NCV is eveything you need in a strike carrier.
-
I hope not I like CVS,CVS+ .CVB and CVBR
-
Anyway to "Legally" move up the FYA on the C5K? 2270 would be nice.
-
Well, as I mentioned, I don't *have* advanced missions, so it is somewhat hard to check that resource ;)
Eliminating the CVB and CVBR is certainly *one approach* to this problem, and given that you don't modify the ships in your list, that is the correct approach.
In my *personal* shiplist, I will give the CVB shields and phasers from the CB.
* * * *
On another note, responding to an earlier post, I feel the pain of all the tugs in the shiplist. As a part of the customization I do for my *personal* shiplist, I put in "sort flags" for certain ships such as Tugs, commando ships, carriers, etc. That way, I can maintain one Master File, but quickly prune out unwanted ships to create my own set of personal shiplists. This is not really hard in Excel.
Ships I typically remove in day-to-day play are Casual PF's, Escorts, HDD's, carriers (with a few notable exceptions), tugs, scouts, and commando ships.
I like the fact the FS put all these things in the shiplist. . .much easier to prune ships out than add them in (I routinely add several ships. . such as Klingon D16's, D18's, and a custom Mirak CB (think CVS without fighters)).
-
Hey FS, does this mean we can get rid of a bunch of other bad Taldren Ideas to like you me and Brezz were talking the other night? ;D
PS. The F-NCV is eveything you need in a strike carrier.
No. :)
The fact that I now know that the VCS and the CVB are the SAME ship with different fighters, well.. In SFC, that's not something's that is implemented. Fighters are variable in SFC. Thus, the correction is to remove the CVB, short for CVSB I think.
-- Luc
-
Anyway to "Legally" move up the FYA on the C5K? 2270 would be nice.
2270 will be fine.
-
FireSoul you may want to replace the F-NCM model with this one.It looks a lot better imho.I looks like
F-CAI.I looked at this through my model viewer and it looked great and I like that model viewer.
http://www.stcd.sgnonline.com/~domwars/DW_Models/Miranda.zip
-
Here is another one for you for the Excelsior it looks better than the original.
http://www.stcd.sgnonline.com/~domwars/DW_Models/Excelsior.zip
-
The Kzinti need and "n" version of their Battlships.
-
Is it intentional that a large portion of the ISC's "Freighter" complement comes with drone racks?
Ships like the Free Traders etc. have plain old fashioned Mirak-esque drone racks...
-
Is it intentional that a large portion of the ISC's "Freighter" complement comes with drone racks?
Ships like the Free Traders etc. have plain old fashioned Mirak-esque drone racks...
yes.
These are civilian freighters, and if you have SSDs you'll see that a dronerack is common for all races.
-
Is it intentional that a large portion of the ISC's "Freighter" complement comes with drone racks?
Ships like the Free Traders etc. have plain old fashioned Mirak-esque drone racks...
yes.
These are civilian freighters, and if you have SSDs you'll see that a dronerack is common for all races.
I don't have all these new SSDs.
The reason I was asking is cause I was under the impression that ADB consistently insisted that there would never be drones on the Plasma-side of the galaxy, and no plasma on the drone-side. Nice to see generic Civilians can afford the drone-import taxes, while the military can't... :D
-
Here is another one for you for the Excelsior it looks better than the original.
[url]http://www.stcd.sgnonline.com/~domwars/DW_Models/Excelsior.zip[/url]
Age,
Do you know who the author is? The included README doesn't say.
-- Luc
-
This is really picky, but the F-HDW seems a wee bit too big. Should it's saucer be bigger than a Constitution Class?
(http://69.115.120.11:9000/images/ca_hdw.jpg)
-
This is really picky, but the F-HDW seems a wee bit too big. Should it's saucer be bigger than a Constitution Class?
That's being REALLY really picky. ;)
-
This is really picky, but the F-HDW seems a wee bit too big. Should it's saucer be bigger than a Constitution Class?
That's being REALLY really picky. ;)
Like it would take you more than 10 seconds to adjust the model.siz file :P
-
This is really picky, but the F-HDW seems a wee bit too big. Should it's saucer be bigger than a Constitution Class?
That's being REALLY really picky. ;)
Like it would take you more than 10 seconds to adjust the model.siz file :P
Nah. Why bother? Ships are actually supposed to be SPECKS at scale we're playing. Range "1" is 10000Km!
HEheh.. well.. if *you* tell me what size is best, maybe I'll change it then. ;)
-- Luc
-
This is really picky, but the F-HDW seems a wee bit too big. Should it's saucer be bigger than a Constitution Class?
That's being REALLY really picky. ;)
Like it would take you more than 10 seconds to adjust the model.siz file :P
Nah. Why bother? Ships are actually supposed to be SPECKS at scale we're playing. Range "1" is 10000Km!
HEheh.. well.. if *you* tell me what size is best, maybe I'll change it then. ;)
-- Luc
Well, considering you don't even HAVE an entry for OPPLUS/MODELS/FHDW/FHDW.MOD in the size file . . . .
I'll do some trial and error stuff and post some screenshots for your consideration.
-
Some (useless) ships have disapeared?
G-APT (Armed Priority Transport) removed.
G-APX (Armed Priority Transport) removed.
So that explains the recent sharp increase in the price of Chocodilles and Scotch. FS you Bastard!!! ;-P
-
Some (useless) ships have disapeared?
G-APT (Armed Priority Transport) removed.
G-APX (Armed Priority Transport) removed.
So that explains the recent sharp increase in the price of Chocodilles and Scotch. FS you Bastard!!! ;-P
Hey. They'll be back.
-
Just had to straighten things out with the union reps... :p
-
And why does it still have overloaded phasers when overloads were removed from SFB a long time ago?
To remain competitive with the Advanced ships. Ideally, that entire portion of the shiplist needs to be fleshed out, but I have no material to do so.
A wish, not sure if you have addressed this already or not. Would love to see either X1s moved to advanced, or X1s have their phasers converted back to Ph1s if left in Late. In other words, I miss the Late Era flavor. Maybe an X1 with Ph1s in late and add an X1.5 with the PhXs in advanced.
-
And why does it still have overloaded phasers when overloads were removed from SFB a long time ago?
To remain competitive with the Advanced ships. Ideally, that entire portion of the shiplist needs to be fleshed out, but I have no material to do so.
A wish, not sure if you have addressed this already or not. Would love to see either X1s moved to advanced, or X1s have their phasers converted back to Ph1s if left in Late. In other words, I miss the Late Era flavor. Maybe an X1 with Ph1s in late and add an X1.5 with the PhXs in advanced.
that's an interesting suggestion. My own thoughts is to 'deal with it later.
.. you know.. put the X1 ships with normal ph1s, move the Advanced era ships to like 2340+, and create stuff later. No one uses the advanced ships in actual campaigns, except for single-player (which will then be screwed).
This needs some thought, obviously since the following things must all work adequately:
- single player skirmishes
- single-player D2
- multiplayer games, LAN or GSA
- multiplayer D2
-
And why does it still have overloaded phasers when overloads were removed from SFB a long time ago?
To remain competitive with the Advanced ships. Ideally, that entire portion of the shiplist needs to be fleshed out, but I have no material to do so.
A wish, not sure if you have addressed this already or not. Would love to see either X1s moved to advanced, or X1s have their phasers converted back to Ph1s if left in Late. In other words, I miss the Late Era flavor. Maybe an X1 with Ph1s in late and add an X1.5 with the PhXs in advanced.
that's an interesting suggestion. My own thoughts is to 'deal with it later.
.. you know.. put the X1 ships with normal ph1s, move the Advanced era ships to like 2340+, and create stuff later. No one uses the advanced ships in actual campaigns, except for single-player (which will then be screwed).
This needs some thought, obviously since the following things must all work adequately:
- single player skirmishes
- single-player D2
- multiplayer games, LAN or GSA
- multiplayer D2
Yeah my basic frustration with the current X1s is with GSA play not D2. If I had a nickle for every time I played a Late Era "no X" match and one guy didn't see the "no X" term in chat, I would be up to my neck in chocodiles. I sort of miss the pure late flavor is all.
-
Kroma is right, the X1 ships will play much better with GW ships with the PHX converted to PH1. People's "x-phobia" may lessen for D2 use and ladder/GSA polay won't be nearly as stupid.
-
Kroma is right, the X1 ships will play much better with GW ships with the PHX converted to PH1. People's "x-phobia" may lessen for D2 use and ladder/GSA polay won't be nearly as stupid.
big problem: X1 ships with no X weapons at all aren't X1 ships.
-- Luc
-
Kroma is right, the X1 ships will play much better with GW ships with the PHX converted to PH1. People's "x-phobia" may lessen for D2 use and ladder/GSA polay won't be nearly as stupid.
big problem: X1 ships with no X weapons at all aren't X1 ships.
-- Luc
So? The Ubber-powercurves make them "X."
Oveloading phasers was pulled in SFB years ago and ALL the other SFB X-weapons don't exist either.
hhhhmmmmm, open-source ;D
-
So? The Ubber-powercurves make them "X."
Oveloading phasers was pulled in SFB years ago and ALL the other SFB X-weapons don't exist either.
hhhhmmmmm, open-source ;D
It's still much easier for me to ask for your patience, and wait to see what happens with the sourcecode..
-
So? The Ubber-powercurves make them "X."
Oveloading phasers was pulled in SFB years ago and ALL the other SFB X-weapons don't exist either.
hhhhmmmmm, open-source ;D
It's still much easier for me to ask for your patience, and wait to see what happens with the sourcecode..
No doubt, as I said it was just wishful thinking ;-)
-
Back to the nit picking ;D
The F-DW looks good at 4.30 IMHO
(http://69.115.120.11:9000/images/ca_dw.jpg)
Model.siz entries should be:
OPPLUS\MODELS\FDW\FDW.MOD 4.30
OPPLUS\MODELS\FDW\FDW_BRK.MOD 4.30
OPPLUS\MODELS\FDWD\FDWD.MOD 4.30
OPPLUS\MODELS\FDWD\FDWD_BRK.MOD 4.30
OPPLUS\MODELS\FDWS\FDWS.MOD 4.25
OPPLUS\MODELS\FDWS\FDWS_BRK.MOD 4.25
OPPLUS\MODELS\FDWV\FDWV.MOD 4.30
OPPLUS\MODELS\FDWV\FDWV_BRK.MOD 4.30
OPPLUS\MODELS\FHDW\FHDW.MOD 4.70
OPPLUS\MODELS\FHDW\FHDW_BRK.MOD 4.70
Next nit to pick , the F-NCL/F-NCA is too small. Isn't the saucer supposed to be the same size as the one on a Connie? Right now, the NCA is SMALLER than the DW even with me shrinking it by 1.
(http://69.115.120.11:9000/images/ca_NCA.jpg)
-
If you wanna compare sizes, use the DW. That engine on the bottom is identical to the DW/HDW multi-engines... That should scale things.
-
If you wanna compare sizes, use the DW. That engine on the bottom is identical to the DW/HDW multi-engines... That should scale things.
Actually, if the F-DW and F-NCA sizes from OP+ 3.4 were flipped, they would look about right.
-
Here is what the NCL looks like with an increase in it's size so the Saucer is the same size os the Saucer of a CA. Below are the Model.siz entries used:
OPPLUS\MODELS\FNCL\FNCL.MOD 7.43
OPPLUS\MODELS\FNCL\FNCL_BRK.MOD 7.43
Warp engines look a little big for 12 pointers, but the saucer is the correct size.
(http://69.115.120.11:9000/images/ca_ncl.jpg)
-
The NCL's saucer is NOT supposed to be as big as a CA's. Sorry DH.
It's the DD's saucer. Could you have mixed the two up?
-
It looks ok considering the NCL may have to go on long missions.More NPCs
Nice pics though
-
It looks ok considering the NCL may have to go on long missions.More NPCs
Nice pics though
The NCL is just a War Cruiser. It's a CL with less hull in the saucer. I hate to break it to you, but 'long missions' is not what it was designed for either.
-
The NCL's saucer is NOT supposed to be as big as a CA's. Sorry DH.
It's the DD's saucer. Could you have mixed the two up?
But the Old DD saucer is precisely the same as the Old CA saucer. That was the failing of the original DD design: It had all the saucer armament of the CA, but only half the power. Of course the internal arrangement is a little different (in terms of labs, hull, ect) but I believe if you add up all the internals of the DD hull (and hence the NCL hull) on the original SSD, they will be the same.
Jumping on DH's nit pick bandwagon....
-
The NCL's smaller. It has 10 hull boxes while the CA's got 12.
Also, if you look at the NCL/NCA models from a profile, they're thicker. The saucer's radius does not have to be the same.
-
what about the DD? (holds club over rotting horse...)
-
Lyran:
Mech Links: Y178
PowerPack: Y177
:o Module C1 lists Lyran P-refits as being Y168...that's a scary proposition, CWLs w/30 power and BCs w/38 power until Y177, even the Kzin would have more juice<shudder>
Any thoughts to adding R-BHB, HFA, and SNC from ADB's Starfleet Times "Advanced Romulan Eagle-Class Designs of the General War"http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/sft34.htm to next OP+ shiplist release?
-
The NCL's smaller. It has 10 hull boxes while the CA's got 12.
Also, if you look at the NCL/NCA models from a profile, they're thicker. The saucer's radius does not have to be the same.
Smaller yeah, but not as small as they appear in OP+ 3.4 ;D
Did I at least get the DW perspective correct?
-
I think you did. I have plugged in some values into the model.siz file that looks ok to me, but that's part of the next release of course.
... when that'll be, who knows. I'm not even 1/2 (maybe 1/3?) through R9 yet because of all the unique and conjectural ship models I have to make. On top of that I have not done any work on the refit dates yet..
But that's okay.. It's gonna be a kickass release.
-
The Fed DD, SC, Tug and CA were supposed to have almost identical saucer dimensions. As others have said, only the internal arrangements vary slightly.
Which is bizarre, but this is not the place to discuss.
The NCL, being developed from a DD+ and having the same basic weapons and internal arrangement, would logically have the same sized saucer (ignoring the fact that the shuttle bay is bigger).
As for the hull boxes: I think Hull boxes are more a function structural strength rather than physical size. The DD has less boxes because the the ship is less robust. Goes along with the hideous breakdown rating.
-
K-D7L should come out before 2275. Captains Log 26, page 37. (Sl218.0) "For the Honor of the Flag"
Scenario is in 2271, Klingon forces are lead by a D7L.
Well, this is good enough for me for moving it up on GW4 ;D
-
FireSoul, I apologize if this is not a OP+ issue or you were already aware.
At the "Ship Library" on the Race Selection screen of SFCOP, when one can cycle through ship schematics, the background ship images are missing for several Fed ships (I believe they were freighters). Sorry: should have written them down. The icons representing the weapons are there, just the simple line artistic images of the ship hulls are missing.
-TF
-
FireSoul, I apologize if this is not a OP+ issue or you were already aware.
At the "Ship Library" on the Race Selection screen of SFCOP, when one can cycle through ship schematics, the background ship images are missing for several Fed ships (I believe they were freighters). Sorry: should have written them down. The icons representing the weapons are there, just the simple line artistic images of the ship hulls are missing.
-TF
I used an orion UI for these freighters, hence the problem. I considered it minor since it works during a scenario..
-
I would note that the line art often no longer matches the actual ship silhouettes with the new models and shiplist. Is there any way to correct this? I'd do some new line art, but I suck at drawing.
-
To my understanding, the UI shown in the upper right corner (line drawing) is controlled by the Q3 game file.. it is unlikely that it can be fixed until the OP source code is released along with the quicksilver code for the Q3 file... as such, I think Firesoul is matching the ships to the best possible UI that represents it... People can make UI images.. but they can not be added to the Q3 game file as of yet... sorry.
-
What about correcting spelling and grammar errors in the in mission comms texts like in the "Peace in Our Times" scenario for the EAW for OP stuff. "Not long ago there was a incident involing sabotage message buoys..." Corrected it reads "Not long ago, there was an incident involving sabotaged message buoys..."
BTW, has anyone ever tried to make an SFC1 campaign pack for EAW or OP? Or is it too hard to code what with having no officers you can purchase like in SFC1? And no way for a rom char to choose to join the Praetorian guard or the Tal Shiar, etc.
-
What about correcting spelling and grammar errors in the in mission comms texts like in the "Peace in Our Times" scenario for the EAW for OP stuff. "Not long ago there was a incident involing sabotage message buoys..." Corrected it reads "Not long ago, there was an incident involving sabotaged message buoys..."
BTW, has anyone ever tried to make an SFC1 campaign pack for EAW or OP? Or is it too hard to code what with having no officers you can purchase like in SFC1? And no way for a rom char to choose to join the Praetorian guard or the Tal Shiar, etc.
Hey Josh,
.. truth is, the amount of work required to do a SFC1 pack for EAW or OP would turn off any SFC hobby developper. Maybe you should look into doing it yourself?
-
You have any recommended resources for learning how to code this stuff?
It's funny...I was going to say "maybe when I have more time" and then I stopped, and I told myself, "The hell with that! If I wait til I have more time, I'll never start!"
-
Well, see if you can get your hands on MS Visual Studio 6. It's older but perfectly good for SFC's mission packs. Other than that, all the ressources are online on people's sites.
-
Please don't tell me they actually used Visual Basic to code this game?
-
No, Visual C++
-
No, Visual C++
What he said. MSVC 6.0 sp 5.
-
Lyran:
Mech Links: Y178
PowerPack: Y177
:o Module C1 lists Lyran P-refits as being Y168...that's a scary proposition, CWLs w/30 power and BCs w/38 power until Y177, even the Kzin would have more juice<shudder>
There are 2 P refits: Powerpack and phsers. I assume Y168 is the phaser refit.
-
No, Visual C++
Crap. I don't even know C or C++, much less Visual C++
-
No, Visual C++
Crap. I don't even know C or C++, much less Visual C++
Don't get discouraged by a little detail like that. ;)
-
I also don't have much in the way of spare time to learn it. Why hasn't anyone just written a utility with a GUI to do mission scripting anyway? Or what about a basic blank minimal mission script that would let you fill in the rest? Also a basic blank campaign file?
-
When you create a mission script using VC++, it essentially creates a 'blank' mission for you to fill in. Of course, you may not want much of what it autogenerates for you and have to change things anyway.
FMSE is a GUI that creates mission scripts, but it is very limited.
Remember that because the game was written in C++, and that the mission scripts are also written in C++, anything you can do in a C++ program, you can also do in a mission script. It is this flexibility that makes using actual code essential.
-
Could mission scripts be written that emulate single-internals?
-
Could mission scripts be written that emulate single-internals?
It might be possible to get a mission script to double the damage everytime something gets hit, effectively giving you single internals, however damage would still be distributed the same (ie. systems would still be in half damaged states).
Only the client source code can realistically change the number of internals, and it could be difficult.
-
Could mission scripts be written that emulate single-internals?
Not correctly.
Besides, can I get my thread back, please? :)
-
Sorry Firesoul. That's my fault.
Corrections for OP+...Hmm...
Why don't there seem to be any XBBs or at least BBXes? At least, I can't recal having seen them. But you'd think a Battleship of all things would deffinitely get refitted with X weaps. A battleship was designed for a slugging match, after all, and better weapons = a harder punch.
-
Actually, X-tech was developped so you wouldn't NEED to make DNs and BBs anymore.
-
I just know that there aren't any. For example, ADB has specifically created DLXs (X1 DNLs) for the pleasure of the players, but have been clear in saying that such 'technology' would have been impossible, and thus none of these ships were actually built. The same goes for DNs, DNHs, BBs, etc.
-
I guess it's kinda like how during WWII, carriers took over for battleships because of Pearl Harbor and the demonstration that air power reigned supreme over the briney deep. Well, we could have some XSCSes maybe? I know that in the US Navy a lot of advanced tech ends up on carriers. Though apparently our cruisers and cans(destroyers, Arleigh Burke Class in particular) get the most advanced(AEGIS) systems, though those are the flower of 1975 tech. ;D
-
that's kinda out of the scope of this mod.
-
I was just commenting about the reasons for no XBBs or even BBXes may have been similar to the reason the US navy and every other navey in the worlod no longer fields battleships.
-
Back on Topic . . .
Can you swap the Weapons loadout and UI of the H-OS with the H-OV? It is the same hull.
-
Hydran Dreads.... all of the ones with 8 fighters have them broken down as 2 wings of 4.
But the LGE & LGE+ are 3, 3, & 2.
Any particular reason why? And can you change the LGE & LGE+ to 4 & 4 like the others?
-
These aren't corrections, more like requests.
Can we remove all of the cloaks off of the Romulan PF's please? With the "armed plasma" programing it maskes every model except for the plasma D variants practically worthless as they cloak as soon as they are empty and cannot respond to calls to return due to power use. As it stands now they are just easy targets when they do this.
Can we have all fighters grouped into threes and fours (where able)? A squad of two is usless and it is better to have one squad of four than two squads of two etc....
Thank you.
-
I dunno about the fighters, but the PFs definitely keep the cloak.
-
I dunno about the fighters, but the PFs definitely keep the cloak.
Even though it makes them unuseable? Thanks for the deep consideration on that one. ::)
-
I dunno about the fighters, but the PFs definitely keep the cloak.
Even though it makes them unuseable? Thanks for the deep consideration on that one. ::)
They were perfectly usable to me during GW4. That's how I am now able to say 'no' with a bit of experience.
-
I can safely say I know how to use PF's well and cloaked ones in a 3v3 have no chance at all, but hell, WTF do I know?
-
I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps next time you should fly Gorn. They have plasma and don't cloak.
Seriously, sarcasm aside, I don't want to change the Romulan PFs.
-
It has nothing to do with piloting skills. It has to do with SFB specs.
-
I realize that, but it sort of cripples a decent part of the Romulan fleet because of bad AI usage. Believe me, when I physically fly them myself, the cloak is great, but on their own they flounder.
-
Can we have all fighters grouped into threes and fours (where able)? A squad of two is usless and it is better to have one squad of four than two squads of two etc....
THANK YOU, I was about to suggest this myself. DIP actually had unanimous agreement on this change.
-
Cole posted the rules for XP conversion on the ADB boards. Food for thought . . . ;D
-
Cole posted the rules for XP conversion on the ADB boards. Food for thought . . . ;D
Partial X? yeah.. but I'll wait for a printed official book as rules tend to change. Want to give a URL?
-
Cole posted the rules for XP conversion on the ADB boards. Food for thought . . . ;D
Partial X? yeah.. but I'll wait for a printed official book as rules tend to change. Want to give a URL?
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/9333.html?1103440293
Tred lightly, this could potentially ruin ladder play. ;D
-
[url]http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/9333.html?1103440293[/url]
Tred lightly, this could potentially ruin ladder play. ;D
I see that.
I think I'll hold for now. I already have my goals set for this next release. I've already decided that I wasn't going to do everything I already planned (ie: the refits part of the enhanced shiplist) since the amount of work is monstrous and I can't seem to get a decent system together.
At this time I'm running final checks on the shiplist. I still have the Kzin C refit years to double-check, but that I could probably do on an extended sitting, one night I'm not too tired or busy. (Damn Christmas). After these last checks, the mod itself will most likely be finished and I can move on to the co-releases I want to make that implement and use the enhancements I have made.
.. A January release is likely. Maybe even a New Year's release. We'll see.
-- Luc
-
.. A January release is likely. Maybe even a New Year's release. We'll see.
-- Luc
Hmmm, F-CS+ . . .
-
What is F-CS+ ?
-
What is F-CS+ ?
You'll see in the next OP+
-
What is F-CS+ ?
Friggin-CheezyShip+
-
What is F-CS+ ?
Friggin-CheezyShip+
Think it's bad now? Wait until ADB realizes it can make money selling a product with variants ;D
-
Obviously it's some sort of Fed cruiser, but what kind, I couldn't begin to speculate.
-
*Cough* D77 *cough* ;D
-
*Cough* D77 *cough* ;D
*snicker*
Imaginary propaganda ships such as the D77 or the Feds with an extra warp were never built. ;)
The F-CS, however, does have a prototype and it worked.
-
This old post may answer F-CS questions..
.. and scare you when you see the K-B10T.
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163346762.msg1122448691.html#msg1122448691
-
Can you do a 5/6 th move cost ship though?
Doesn't seem to be available option.
-
Can you do a 5/6 th move cost ship though?
Doesn't seem to be available option.
Yes. You just type it in.
0.8333
-
This old post may answer F-CS questions..
.. and scare you when you see the K-B10T.
[url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163346762.msg1122448691.html#msg1122448691[/url]
What is F-CS+ ?
Friggin-CheezyShip+
I am jonesing to fly that thing if it is anything like it was described to me......;D
-
Firesoul, I recommend upgrading your TOS FECA model (TOS Enterprise) with StressPuppy's current version located at
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163350024.0.html
Extremely accurate.. fantastic creation skills on his part !!!! it contains 6 registry hull textures as well so you can better deliniate the ships in the shiplist.
Great for Early era CA and CC models.
-
Firesoul, I recommend upgrading your TOS FECA model (TOS Enterprise) with StressPuppy's current version located at
[url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163350024.0.html[/url]
Extremely accurate.. fantastic creation skills on his part !!!! it contains 6 registry hull textures as well so you can better deliniate the ships in the shiplist.
Great for Early era CA and CC models.
Thanks Pesty, but I am quite happy with Lord Schtupp's work. I like the rusty old look. ;)
-
Firesoul, I recommend upgrading your TOS FECA model (TOS Enterprise) with StressPuppy's current version located at
[url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163350024.0.html[/url]
Extremely accurate.. fantastic creation skills on his part !!!! it contains 6 registry hull textures as well so you can better deliniate the ships in the shiplist.
Great for Early era CA and CC models.
Thanks Pesty, but I am quite happy with Lord Schtupp's work. I like the rusty old look. ;)
I'm torn, they BOTH are wonderful.
-
Firesoul, I recommend upgrading your TOS FECA model (TOS Enterprise) with StressPuppy's current version located at
[url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163350024.0.html[/url]
Extremely accurate.. fantastic creation skills on his part !!!! it contains 6 registry hull textures as well so you can better deliniate the ships in the shiplist.
Great for Early era CA and CC models.
Thanks Pesty, but I am quite happy with Lord Schtupp's work. I like the rusty old look. ;)
Understood Firesoul.. StressPuppy did include weathered textures for the ship in the DL to where the ship looks like the one on TV from Trials and Tribulations episode.. so you actually have a choice of 6 hull registries premade along with blanks and the font and instructions on how to make other hull registries as well as having textures for the clean out of spacedock look or the weathered, been in space for 5 years without a wash look..
Lord Shupps is cool as well, but StressPuppy took several references including Studio Model and blueprints and so forth to create his.. took him almost a month in modeling this thing to scale and to get the design accurate...
but again it is up to personal preferences..
-
Firesoul, I recommend upgrading your TOS FECA model (TOS Enterprise) with StressPuppy's current version located at
[url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163350024.0.html[/url]
Extremely accurate.. fantastic creation skills on his part !!!! it contains 6 registry hull textures as well so you can better deliniate the ships in the shiplist.
Great for Early era CA and CC models.
Thanks Pesty, but I am quite happy with Lord Schtupp's work. I like the rusty old look. ;)
Great job, I love all those new Fed allies and Klingon targets, but it seems that yet again the Hydran Kingdom has been left alone and out in the dark, to be conquered by those evil, violent addict ridge head bipeds.... :(
Any new Hydrans in the works?
(BTW, Firesoul, each and every one here that loves sfc owes you about a bar worth of beer, and some truckloads of pretzels)
Thank you so much and KEEP GOING!
-
Firesoul,
i just ran OP + v3.4 through your model tester script for all models.. it came up with 1 model missing..
Error: model is MISSING: yellowsun CY
Everything else checked out fine.. hope that this helps.
-
Firesoul,
i just ran OP + v3.4 through your model tester script for all models.. it came up with 1 model missing..
Error: model is MISSING: yellowsun CY
Everything else checked out fine.. hope that this helps.
yeah.. That's actually.. standard. It's like that in the stock shiplist too.