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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
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?
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.
Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
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.
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.
Quote:
The single warp engine was removed, and a dual warp engine system with 12 warps each was installed, NCL-style.
Quote:
Are you having fun, at least?
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.
Quote:
Stupid question time:
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
KF
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.....
Quote:
Stupid question time:
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
Quote:
LDR/Camboro:
They simply can?t go into Tiger Heart and Camboro slots correct?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
O.K. that's enough abuse for tonight.![]()
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
Quote:
I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.
Quote:
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
Quote:
3- It's a modified DD, not a 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.
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.
![]()
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.![]()
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
BUMP because I'd really like this explained.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.![]()
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
Quote:
I could not find the problem mentioned in the following. I think Hypergol made an error or something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.![]()
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.
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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-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
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
Quote:
Thanks for doing those "n" variants FS!![]()
![]()
Quote:
And all the other Hydrans on GSA.
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Quote:Quote:
And all the other Hydrans on GSA.
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Seems as if we're an endangered species...
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?
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?
Quote:
FS, a quick DIP-related question if I may.
Are the model pointers for 3.2 the same as 3.0?
Quote:
Speaking of monitors, what are they and what are they good for?
Quote:
Monitors are primarily System defense and presence units. They are often assigned for defense of a colonized planet and such.
Quote:
Basically a mobile base of command?
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??
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.
Quote:
Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?
Quote:
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?
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+...
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?
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...
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.
Quote:
...after having spent hundreds of hours on the whole thing.
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.
Quote:
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...
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.
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.
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.
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)?
Quote:
Do you need the old 6A?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
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?
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.
Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.
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.
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.
Quote:
The single warp engine was removed, and a dual warp engine system with 12 warps each was installed, NCL-style.
Quote:
Are you having fun, at least?
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.
Quote:
Stupid question time:
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
KF
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.....
Quote:
Stupid question time:
What happened to the STOCK ships like the FBCH and the PCL?
Quote:
LDR/Camboro:
They simply can?t go into Tiger Heart and Camboro slots correct?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
5) F-FLG came out in 2234. It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod. Picky picky
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
O.K. that's enough abuse for tonight.![]()
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
Quote:
I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.
Quote:
3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.
Quote:
3- It's a modified DD, not a 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.
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.
![]()
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.![]()
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
BUMP because I'd really like this explained.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.![]()
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
Quote:
I could not find the problem mentioned in the following. I think Hypergol made an error or something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.![]()
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.
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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-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
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
Quote:
Thanks for doing those "n" variants FS!![]()
![]()
Quote:
And all the other Hydrans on GSA.
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Quote:Quote:
And all the other Hydrans on GSA.
Right guys?
<cricket sounds>
Seems as if we're an endangered species...
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?
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?
Quote:
FS, a quick DIP-related question if I may.
Are the model pointers for 3.2 the same as 3.0?
Quote:
Speaking of monitors, what are they and what are they good for?
Quote:
Monitors are primarily System defense and presence units. They are often assigned for defense of a colonized planet and such.
Quote:
Basically a mobile base of command?
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??
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.
Quote:
Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?
Quote:
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?
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+...
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?
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...
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.
Quote:
...after having spent hundreds of hours on the whole thing.
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.
Quote:
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...
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.
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.
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.
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)?
Quote:
Do you need the old 6A?
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.
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?