Print Page - OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on February 07, 2004, 09:57:10 pm

Quote:

Of course not.
If it actually gives it 0 reloads, a A-rack will have 4 drones. Besides, the MRS has 2 *separate* drones that should be able to fire independantly. I'm not sure if it's in separate turns or the same.

-- Luc

Yep.... still have bunches of drones.... oh well... too bad you can't get fighter drones to load up on shiplist vessels....

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kizar on February 09, 2004, 01:55:24 pm

These are the MRS stats from SFB, I am not sure if this is absolutely up to date but it is fairly close:

All: Speed 8, Damage 10, BPV 10

Fed, Klingon, Kzinti (Mirak): 1xPh-3 (360)+ADD (6 rounds)+2 spaces of drones
Lyran, LDR: 2xPh-3 (360)+1xPh-2 (360)
Hydran: 1xPh-G (360)+ Ph-2 (360)
Rom, Gorn, ISC Y150-Y167: 2xPh-3 (360)+Ph-2 (360)
Rom, Gorn, ISC Y165+: 2xPh-3 (360)+2xPlasma-D
Tholian: 1xPh-3 (360)+web spinner+Ph-2 (360)

Drone armed MRS shuttles have unique drone rails and can carry any combination of any type of drone (including RALADs) up to a limit of two total spaces.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 09, 2004, 02:16:35 pm

Quote:

These are the MRS stats from SFB, I am not sure if this is absolutely up to date but it is fairly close:

All: Speed 8, Damage 10, BPV 10

Fed, Klingon, Kzinti (Mirak): 1xPh-3 (360)+ADD (6 rounds)+2 spaces of drones
Lyran, LDR: 2xPh-3 (360)+1xPh-2 (360)
Hydran: 1xPh-G (360)+ Ph-2 (360)
Rom, Gorn, ISC Y150-Y167: 2xPh-3 (360)+Ph-2 (360)
Rom, Gorn, ISC Y165+: 2xPh-3 (360)+2xPlasma-D
Tholian: 1xPh-3 (360)+web spinner+Ph-2 (360)

Drone armed MRS shuttles have unique drone rails and can carry any combination of any type of drone (including RALADs) up to a limit of two total spaces.

Thanks. I think typeI drones might be in order..
.. now the question is.. how would this be implemented? Entries in the ftrlist.txt that noone uses except in the scripts? (that's fine).. .. other functions of an MRS will obviously never be used.

.. like: being able to use its transporter to lay a tbomb..
.. like: transfering drones to it (drone control. .. yes, I know it's not in the rest of the game anyways.. so scratch that)
.. like: lending ECM/ECCM..

.. also, do you have dates of availability?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kizar on February 09, 2004, 02:31:12 pm

Availability date is listed as Y150 (note the change over for the plasma boys).

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 15, 2004, 01:40:03 pm

Progress report...

.. I haven't bothered entering MRSes into the ftrlist yet. I'm still handling models.

.. as some of you may know, I've been 'optomizing' models, adding LODs, cleaning up orphan vertexes and creating new break mods where I found it would help, using one of the lower poly # LODs of the model. These above have ALL been done and tested ..

Tangent: this is why I wrote that models tester skirmish script.. .. use it, it helps.

Current process is reviewing my break models, and 'plugging up' the holes. What do I mean? .. well..
.. when a ship blows up, if a part that passes by on your screen is showing you the insides of the ship, you'll see right through it. (Technical terms: there aren't any polys there where the normals are facing you). What I've been doing is plugging up those holes and applying some generic internal damage texture.

Here's an example from a burke class Federation FF:

This is TEDIOUS.. .. I'm talking about up to around 1 hours per ship. Remember that OP+ installs over 200 ships.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Dogmatix! on February 16, 2004, 04:15:09 pm

Egads...that's a stggering amount of work, FS.

Thanks for it, though.

Heh..let me know when you start taking special orders for ship model mods!

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Bonk on February 16, 2004, 09:07:27 pm

Heya FireSoul, quick question if ya don't mind...

Is the limit of ships per class still 128 and does that include "SPECIAL"?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 16, 2004, 09:44:28 pm

Quote:

Heya FireSoul, quick question if ya don't mind...

Is the limit of ships per class still 128 and does that include "SPECIAL"?

yes, it's still 128.. .. and you're thinking about the wrong column.
The column affected, in the shiplist for each race, is "Hull Type", the 2nd column.

ie: F, FF, CL, CA, DN, etc..

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Bonk on February 16, 2004, 09:58:34 pm

Ah, I was going by the 2538 patch notes:
"71)Increased the number of ships per class from 64 to 128."

So I figured it meant the "Class Type" column not the "Hull Type"... Doh!

Thanks for the info!

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Bonk on February 16, 2004, 10:18:25 pm

One more quick question if you will, what if there is more than 128 per hull type - are the extras just omitted or can it cause problems?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 16, 2004, 10:34:21 pm

Quote:

One more quick question if you will, what if there is more than 128 per hull type - are the extras just omitted or can it cause problems?

omitted. It's as if they were never allocated. "cropped".

.. makes me think the whole thing is malloc'd array of ships of a certain size (128).. .. *shrug* ..
Any excess is simply not used.. although I wonder where it's writing at that point, in memory.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Bonk on February 16, 2004, 11:31:26 pm

Thats what I thought, thanks.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 25, 2004, 02:15:24 pm

Progress report..

Model fixing:
126 models to do..
.. out of the current 221.
The Lyrans are done. The Gorns only have a couple to go. Any new additions have been also updated before being added to OP+. (ie: FCAD, FGSC, FEGSC, etc..)

Other fixes that have been completed:
1- the H-LGE and LGE+'s phGs weren't switched back to LWX/RWX arcs.

Other enhancements:
.. someone sent me to a freeware application that can do batch conversions while preserving the quality as much as possible. For example, I could not discern any differences between the 24-bit textures of p81's FCA to the 8-bit conversion of the same (same resolution).

.. so I proceeded to 8-bit-ize all the BMP textures that are in use, for all of the models. Some .BMP files dropped from 768KB to 256KB without any quality loss. The current installer is about 41.3MB in size. That's incredible. I'm adding ships.. adding features.. and the thing keeps getting smaller!

-- Luc

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Dogmatix! on February 25, 2004, 02:54:19 pm

Maybe I just don't understand SFC models (and I'm sure that the case), but I am shocked that one cannot tell the difference between a 24-bit texture and and 8-bit.

Could we see examples?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 25, 2004, 03:12:25 pm

Quote:

Maybe I just don't understand SFC models (and I'm sure that the case), but I am shocked that one cannot tell the difference between a 24-bit texture and and 8-bit.

Could we see examples?

The resolution stays the same. The number of colors go down from 16.6million colors to 256. This is not a crippling thing since relatively few 'living' colours will be used in doing this. The 256 colours does the job well.

.. for examples, Thu11s' models all always used 8-bit BMPs. Did you notice?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: DH123 on February 25, 2004, 03:35:44 pm

Quote:

Maybe I just don't understand SFC models (and I'm sure that the case), but I am shocked that one cannot tell the difference between a 24-bit texture and and 8-bit.

Could we see examples?

Not all graphic programs are created equal. Bitmpa done in Paint Shop pro, for example, are not destroyed when the color depth is downgraded.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 25, 2004, 03:39:57 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe I just don't understand SFC models (and I'm sure that the case), but I am shocked that one cannot tell the difference between a 24-bit texture and and 8-bit.

Could we see examples?

Not all graphic programs are created equal. Bitmpa done in Paint Shop pro, for example, are not destroyed when the color depth is downgraded.

Right.
I used: Pic2Pic

.. you can generate your own examples, now.

-- Luc

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Dogmatix! on February 26, 2004, 11:14:34 am

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe I just don't understand SFC models (and I'm sure that the case), but I am shocked that one cannot tell the difference between a 24-bit texture and and 8-bit.

Could we see examples?

The resolution stays the same. The number of colors go down from 16.6million colors to 256. This is not a crippling thing since relatively few 'living' colours will be used in doing this. The 256 colours does the job well.

.. for examples, Thu11s' models all always used 8-bit BMPs. Did you notice?

Nope and his models are among my faves. Well, cool, then... hehehe...

My big thing is hi-res...I like the hi-res models. Da mo' detail, da mo' better....

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Dogmatix! on March 07, 2004, 09:50:15 pm

Luc:

I was looking through my Module R6 (The Fast Warships), specifically the FD7 and I wondered if I was reading this correctly.

It appears that the FD7 as you have it in 3.2 is correct, but when you add the K-refit to it, did you perhaps orgot to turn the A-racks into B-racks. Am I misunderstanding something?

According to the SSD, FD7 gets the K-refit and B-racks...

Just curious...

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on March 07, 2004, 09:59:43 pm

Quote:

Luc:

I was looking through my Module R6 (The Fast Warships), specifically the FD7 and I wondered if I was reading this correctly.

It appears that the FD7 as you have it in 3.2 is correct, but when you add the K-refit to it, did you perhaps orgot to turn the A-racks into B-racks. Am I misunderstanding something?

According to the SSD, FD7 gets the K-refit and B-racks...

Just curious...

The Taldren stock FD7 has F racks. The K refit they entered for it has B racks, but only in Y169.

What I did is changed the K refit to A racks and kept Y169, and added a Y175 refit where they get B racks. Look for the FD7R. .. I kept some of Taldren stock aspects, but adapted them to be more SFB-like.

-- Luc

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Dogmatix! on March 08, 2004, 07:17:44 am

Gotcha.

I was gonna also mention the ADD6 going to ADD12, but I see the FD7R has that covered too. I didn't know about that ship until I just now looked in the shiplist...heheh. I'm not sure I've ever seen it in a D2 shipyard. I'll kep an eye out for it, because the FD7K is kind of a fun ship to fly. ADD12 and B-racks will make it even more so!

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on March 08, 2004, 09:23:57 am

Quote:

Gotcha.

I was gonna also mention the ADD6 going to ADD12, but I see the FD7R has that covered too. I didn't know about that ship until I just now looked in the shiplist...heheh. I'm not sure I've ever seen it in a D2 shipyard. I'll kep an eye out for it, because the FD7K is kind of a fun ship to fly. ADD12 and B-racks will make it even more so!

'Fun' as in getting advanced equipment earlier, you mean.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: The_Infiltrator on March 21, 2004, 10:37:11 pm

Is this a good place to submit ship name corrections? A quick scan shows me that there's some work to be done here if you want.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on March 21, 2004, 11:44:09 pm

Yes. This is a good place for corrections. This is what this thread is for.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: The_Infiltrator on March 22, 2004, 08:13:54 pm

I'll address these in no real particular order. I'm working off of many sources so forgive me for that; I'll put up the class names in the file and what I've found in the SFB source materials (and where) for you.

|H-IC|HMS Iron
||HMS Chromium
||HMS Gold
||HMS Silver
||HMS Platinum
||HMS Latnum
||HMS Titanium

There's only 1 IC, and that ship is the HMS Exchequer (R9.84).

|H-ID|HMS Iron Duke
||HMS Iron Prince
||HMS Iron Knife
||HMS Iron Blade
||HMS Iron Noble
||HMS Iron Knight

This is somewhat difficult, but there is at least 1 known name, HMS Royal Sovereign, the first of the class (R9.42).

|H-LGE|HMS Malatryx
||HMS Fematryx

There was a planned but never built 3rd of this class, the HMS Matratryx.

|H-PAL|HMS Hydra
||HMS Hydran Lord
||HMS Ether Spirit
||HMS Iridium Soul

The first 2 of this class are converted/modernized Templars, so the names are HMS Triumph and HMS Victory (R9.83). One of this class was converted to a LP, HMS Majestryx (R9.54). The same names of course would be present for the PAL+ and the Regent.

|H-DG|HMS Fortitude
||HMS Magnificent
||HMS Majestic
||HMS Zenith

There is another of this class, the HMS Colossus (SH 79.0).

|H-DWS|HMS Bounty
||HMS Security
||HMS Cannon

HMS Mystic Seer is part of this class (SH 222.0).

Lots more, but that's enough for me for now.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on March 24, 2004, 06:01:00 pm

Quote:

I'll address these in no real particular order. I'm working off of many sources so forgive me for that; I'll put up the class names in the file and what I've found in the SFB source materials (and where) for you.

|H-IC|HMS Iron
||HMS Chromium
||HMS Gold
||HMS Silver
||HMS Platinum
||HMS Latnum
||HMS Titanium

There's only 1 IC, and that ship is the HMS Exchequer (R9.84).

Ok. Done.

Quote:

|H-ID|HMS Iron Duke
||HMS Iron Prince
||HMS Iron Knife
||HMS Iron Blade
||HMS Iron Noble
||HMS Iron Knight

This is somewhat difficult, but there is at least 1 known name, HMS Royal Sovereign, the first of the class (R9.42).

Ok. Added as first in the list.

Quote:

|H-LGE|HMS Malatryx
||HMS Fematryx

There was a planned but never built 3rd of this class, the HMS Matratryx.

Ok. Added.

Quote:

|H-PAL|HMS Hydra
||HMS Hydran Lord
||HMS Ether Spirit
||HMS Iridium Soul

The first 2 of this class are converted/modernized Templars, so the names are HMS Triumph and HMS Victory (R9.83). One of this class was converted to a LP, HMS Majestryx (R9.54). The same names of course would be present for the PAL+ and the Regent.

Done.

Quote:

|H-DG|HMS Fortitude
||HMS Magnificent
||HMS Majestic
||HMS Zenith
There is another of this class, the HMS Colossus (SH 79.0).

Ok. Added.

Quote:

|H-DWS|HMS Bounty
||HMS Security
||HMS Cannon

HMS Mystic Seer is part of this class (SH 222.0).

Added.

Quote:

Lots more, but that's enough for me for now.

I never considered the names of the ships a big thing, but if it makes players more comfortable, keep sending the data.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: The_Infiltrator on March 24, 2004, 09:10:37 pm

It's probabally minor, but some of the names annoy me. And it appears that I won't have to do that much work, as it looks like SVC has finally gotten around to getting this part of the house in order:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/21/6850.html?1079978109

Read and use

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on March 24, 2004, 10:48:50 pm

This is an enormous amount of work for me. I don't think you should expect me to go through this just like that, especially since I don't consider the names such a big deal.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Pestalence on March 25, 2004, 12:03:09 am

Quote:

It's probabally minor, but some of the names annoy me. And it appears that I won't have to do that much work, as it looks like SVC has finally gotten around to getting this part of the house in order:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/21/6850.html?1079978109

Read and use

Someone had way, way too much time on their hands to make the posts in the link you provided...

and since the shipnames.txt file is not CRC checked on a server.. good luch editing it yourself...

that is just way too many ships to name for a PC game.. and really un necessary..

just do what I do.. go in game and hit F9.. that way you don't have to deal with shipnames or HUD info...

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Corbomite on March 25, 2004, 12:11:06 am

Is the R-SKL supposed to be showing the BH model with the Skyhawk UI?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: The_Infiltrator on March 25, 2004, 07:22:16 am

Quote:

Quote:

It's probabally minor, but some of the names annoy me. And it appears that I won't have to do that much work, as it looks like SVC has finally gotten around to getting this part of the house in order:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/21/6850.html?1079978109

Read and use

Someone had way, way too much time on their hands to make the posts in the link you provided...

and since the shipnames.txt file is not CRC checked on a server.. good luch editing it yourself...

that is just way too many ships to name for a PC game.. and really un necessary..

just do what I do.. go in game and hit F9.. that way you don't have to deal with shipnames or HUD info...

Hydrans use F11 to assist in tracking fighters. Doesn't work that way.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on March 25, 2004, 01:50:22 pm

Quote:

Is the R-SKL supposed to be showing the BH model with the Skyhawk UI?

No models pack, right?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Corbomite on March 25, 2004, 01:56:12 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Is the R-SKL supposed to be showing the BH model with the Skyhawk UI?

No models pack, right?

Correct.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on March 25, 2004, 01:59:36 pm

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: ghostcamel on March 28, 2004, 02:55:48 am

Request for more ISC ship models please, or spread the ones present now through more of the fleet. Like the HDWs and BCV.

A couple BPV questions,

The ISC BCV is 262bpv it has weapons of a CCZ but power of CAZ. The CCZ is 229 Bpv. How was BPV calculated for this ship? How about the I-CCX? Its a really good ship, but not better than a I-XCA... is it?

A request:

Could someone explain battletugs/tugs and Monitors to me? Some SFB background and their actual uses in SFC would be great . Thanks.

And praise:

Split PPD mounts are the best thing ever!

I love the I-BBVZ

Its BPV is just right.

Thank You, again, for all the hard work

It is greatly appreciated.....

now back to work till all the ISC ships look as preeety as the Feddies

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on March 30, 2004, 05:18:36 pm

SFB Tugs etc.

In SFB, in addition to the extremely slow freighters, there are "line" warships converted to a cargo carrying role. Tugs and Light Tactical Transports (LTTs).

The original tug was from the Franz Joseph Technical Manual (the Ptlomey). Notice how it looks like a cruiser with a giant pod slung / towed underneath. SFB created "pallet", which fulfill the same role as pods for certain races.

These pods are normally bulk-freight carriers, but someone designed pods filled with such things as weapons, fighter hangers, power systems, etc.

When these special pods are fitted to the tugs, you get the "special" tugs like battle tugs (carrying battle pods), carrier tugs (with hanger pods), etc.

Monitors:

Special ships designed to have DN level firepower. Due to cost-saving measures, the engines are barely capable of moving the ship. They are normally towed to an important system where they are assigned system-defense duties. If a monitor was theoretically sent on a fixed-position assault or an escort mission, the monitor is so slow that it would take forever to get to the target / destination...

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on March 30, 2004, 07:18:11 pm

Quote:

Request for more ISC ship models please, or spread the ones present now through more of the fleet. Like the HDWs and BCV.

.. I have a model for the HDWs..
.. as for the BCV, I don't consider making a model a correction.

Quote:

A couple BPV questions,
The ISC BCV is 262bpv it has weapons of a CCZ but power of CAZ. The CCZ is 229 Bpv. How was BPV calculated for this ship? How about the I-CCX? Its a really good ship, but not better than a I-XCA... is it?

The BCV is a carrier and is listed at 263 BPV.
- 2 points per basic fighter.. There are 8, so 16 for the fighters. So that brings the ship down to .. 247 BPV
(BTW, the BCV itself is a modified CCZ.)
- next, SFC:OP has a BPV tax on the PLaI torps. (the PLaIs have more functionality than should be). On the CCZ and BCV, I had calculated this tax to be around 9 BPV. That means the CCZ should be worth 220 BPV if the PLaIs worked right, while the BCV is worth 238 BPV. (see: http://klingon.stasis.ca/OP_plusrefit/BPV_adjustments.html#BPVplasmaI )

That comes down to exactly what the SFB BPVs are for these ships. The I-CC (with rear PLaFs) is 220 BPV while the I-BCV is 238. I did it right. Note that the I-CCZ's BPV has remained unchanged from Stock SFC:OP.

Quote:

A request:
Could someone explain battletugs/tugs and Monitors to me? Some SFB background and their actual uses in SFC would be great . Thanks.
And praise:
Split PPD mounts are the best thing ever!
I love the I-BBVZ Its BPV is just right.
Thank You, again, for all the hard work It is greatly appreciated.....
now back to work till all the ISC ships look as preeety as the Feddies

As pretty as the Freddies.. yeah right.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 05, 2004, 10:40:19 am

Progress report..

Model fixing:
60 models to do..
.. out of the current 223.
The Lyrans are done.
The Gorns are done.
The ISC are done.
The Klingons are done.
The Hydrans are done.

Other fixes that have been completed:
1- The L-CWS ship and variants has been added. (I've missed it, apparently)

Other enhancements:
1- Strafer's a fan of Thu11s' new Lyran models, so I've been adding some model separation in the shiplist for him for the LCA, LCC, DCA, DCC, DCCH.. .. there'll be more eventually, but that's all that Thu11s has released for now.

2- Strafer (yeah, him again) decided to do some work on the strings.txt himself. He reviewed all the shipclass names.
Ship classes have been reviewed and renamed to polish the works up. I don't know how many more are left to do.
ie: The G-BB is now called "Godzilla Battleship".

Other News:
I've bought myself a condo. I'm gonna be busy for a while moving stuff over (a few boxes a night type of thing) and preparing the place. We're in the process of painting the master bedroom (2nd primer layer should go on tonight). There's a lot of work to do, and it takes precedence over anything OP-related.

-- Luc

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Age on April 05, 2004, 12:07:17 pm

How about your WebSite Klingonstasis.ca are you still keeping that lets all hope.I hope you enjoy your new place FireSoul I now it is pain to move but after that you can just sit back and be comfortable agian.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 05, 2004, 03:33:14 pm

Yes, I intend to keep that up. However..

.. there might be downtime during the move.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 06, 2004, 08:17:17 pm

Shouldn't the F-FDX be a freighter instead of a special class? I bring it up as it has become a bit of an issue in the GZ forums as an unbalacing designation in the TBPV format allowing the Feds to use it as a very cheap throw away ship at 24 BPV allowing them to spend the extra on larger hulls for the rest of the fleet. The Feds with the FDX (Federation Express) are the only race with such a low BPV ship available on GSA, the name of the ship and it's relative position in the shiplist file lead me to believe it might have actually been a freighter.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: The_Infiltrator on April 06, 2004, 08:31:45 pm

It is a freighter - just a abnormally fast one. Note the word "express".

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 06, 2004, 09:00:28 pm

Quote:

It is a freighter - just a abnormally fast one. Note the word "express".

That was my thinking, it just isn't classed as such in the list.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Strafer on April 06, 2004, 10:19:25 pm

It was made playable for the sheer fun of it.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm

Quote:

It was made playable for the sheer fun of it.

Bingo.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 06, 2004, 10:46:28 pm

Quote:

Quote:

It was made playable for the sheer fun of it.

Bingo.

Unfortunate.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: ghostcamel on April 06, 2004, 10:46:55 pm

[quoteThat comes down to exactly what the SFB BPVs are for these ships. The I-CC (with rear PLaFs) is 220 BPV while the I-BCV is 238. I did it right. Note that the I-CCZ's BPV has remained unchanged from Stock SFC:OP.

I see where my problem lies. I dont really think the BCV without the CCs 44 power is automatically worth 18 points more, just for the ability to carry restitutions.

Quote:

.. as for the BCV, I don't consider making a model a correction.
As pretty as the Freddies.. yeah right.

Not sure what you mean here, if you mean ive inspired you to make some new 3dmodels for ISC, my job here is done

I found the models i was refering to over at FeralYards<---i meant 3d models, not new ships specifications.I was pretty happy with the BCV, then i saw the BBCV, and the new light carriers. ISC got a bunch of new stuff, like everybody. Im happy. Ive wanted a BCV for so long, and unfortunately im not an SFB guy. I couldnt research them myself. Then to come back and see one, even an underpowered one, included in a widely accepted shiplist was just fantastic.

I dont think i noticed a difference in the HDWs from stock CLs ,ill check again.

And just to confirm, OP+ 3.2 is a 143mb file right? Not 43?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 06, 2004, 10:57:01 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It was made playable for the sheer fun of it.

Bingo.

Unfortunate.

I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 06, 2004, 10:58:42 pm

1- I know those models.. and to tell you honestly, I don't like them much. It doesn't fit in with the scheme well.

2- .. OP+ 3.2: size: 43.4mb

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 06, 2004, 11:05:04 pm

How about making everyones APT's playable then, that way everyone can share in the fun and any of the particular TBPV balance issues do to one race having a low end ship at half the cost of everyone elses goes away?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 06, 2004, 11:10:09 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It was made playable for the sheer fun of it.

Bingo.

Unfortunate.

I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

As I alluded to above it causes certian issues with total BPV matches, since only one race has a flyable ship at such a low BPV. Giving everyone a similarly low BPV ship would solve that issue while allowing the FDX to still be enjoyed as it currently is.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 06, 2004, 11:23:46 pm

Why is a ship at a LOW bpv important?
What's the advantage?
Why is this a problem?
Why are you asking this now?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 06, 2004, 11:51:50 pm

Because it can be used as a bit of an exploit for 3v3 total BPV league matches. It allows one team (Fed) to pick it as one of their 3 ships freeing up BPV for the other 2 pilots to pick larger class hulls giving them an advantage at certian total BPVs and particular Era matches. Other races must spend at least 56 BPV on the little ship in a 2 big one little setup. For example at TBPV of 384 feds could take 2 BCFs and a FDX, which with the 2 BCHs and even though the FDX is a throw away, is better than any other fleet another race can field having to either buy 3 smaller hulls or spend at least 50ish on the throw away trying to match the 2 large, 1 small config. That is a short explaination, but suffice it to say it creates a minor issue, that it seems could be removed without ill effect if everyone had access to a similarly low BPV ship.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 07, 2004, 12:15:57 am

Nah. I've had my fun with the FDX.

Freighter is its place if it's that much of an issue. The REAL problem here is that the Federation Express is not a true Federation unit. It's a civilian unit (hence the "SPECIAL" designation). Its home-base is indeed in the federation, but it has no place in fleet combat.

-- Luc

PS: How've you been, Kroma? ... You're a whiny one, aren't you.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Crimmy on April 07, 2004, 12:51:30 am

Gee...a D77 would be "fun" to fly also

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 07, 2004, 09:32:45 am

Quote:

N
PS: How've you been, Kroma? ... You're a whiny one, aren't you.

Been pretty good, playing a lot of GSA lately, but I am a cheesy one, the whine was courtesy of the GZ divisional league, I was just the messenger boy ;-) Seems for the next cycle they are going to make OP+ mandatory instead of just optional.

BTW, I am currently recruiting additional pilots to fill out our roster for the next cycle, are you interested in strapping on the old tutu and flying with the GDA?

Kroma,

PS, Is there a timeline when 3.3 will be coming out as well?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 07, 2004, 10:08:28 am

Quote:

Quote:

PS: How've you been, Kroma? ... You're a whiny one, aren't you.

Been pretty good, playing a lot of GSA lately, but I am a cheesy one, the whine was courtesy of the GZ divisional league, I was just the messenger boy ;-) Seems for the next cycle they are going to make OP+ mandatory instead of just optional.

That's interesting news.. It makes sense to me, actually..

Quote:

BTW, I am currently recruiting additional pilots to fill out our roster for the next cycle, are you interested in strapping on the old tutu and flying with the GDA?

I dunno.. Last thing I want to do is put a Fleet logo to the mod and start getting accused of favoritism.

Quote:

Kroma,
PS, Is there a timeline when 3.3 will be coming out as well?

Sorry.. no idea. It's still called 3.2.1 at my end since it's all bugfixes and polish. There's no real major additional feature otherwise.

As you may know, I've just bought a place. Every evening, I come home, pack up some number of boxes and bring it there. There's also the matter of painting which is in progress over there. There's going to be some network jacks/plates to install in the walls as well as some semi-simple electrical work to do in the storage room.

I basically arrive back to my current home at around 9pm or 10pm and all I want to do is relax. I've been watching Samurai Jack episodes to pass the time and it amuses me greatly.

This weekend involves Easter, so I'm guessing I'll be busy there too. It's not going to be quite for a while I would think.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: 762 on April 07, 2004, 10:51:06 am

If you need peeps I will fly with the GDA tutu-boy. I just have to figure out that damn GZ website.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: DH123 on April 07, 2004, 10:56:11 am

Can't GZ just make a rule not allowing the F-FDX in fleet combat?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 07, 2004, 11:05:03 am

Quote:

If you need peeps I will fly with the GDA tutu-boy. I just have to figure out that damn GZ website.

Request access to the Gorn forum on SFC2NET and I will bump the thread that walks you through getting registered.

FS, you don't really need to become a GDA member or fly the GDA logo to fly with us, we even let J'inn on the team. Heck it is a requirement of my member ship that I don't ;-) They told me it had something to do with their "don't ask, don't tell" policy, whatever that means. In anycase, if you would like to have a little fun flying with the Bruce in the GZ divisional league you are more than welcome.

My question about 3.3 was really more inregard to your 3.2.1, and wondering if it would become the "offical" public release anytime soon, with all the fixes in it.

Thanks, Kroma.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on April 07, 2004, 11:07:51 am

Quote:

Can't GZ just make a rule not allowing the F-FDX in fleet combat?

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Or to use a D2 metephor, "When agreed to PF/Fighter CnCs fly out of my arse!"

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Strafer on April 07, 2004, 11:36:39 am

Quote:

"When agreed to PF/Fighter CnCs fly out of my arse!"

In two by twos? three by threes or is it cheaper by the dozen?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on April 20, 2004, 10:19:58 am

Progress report:

Only the Feds aren't done. However, I've entered a model creation cycle. This is kind-of throwing me off the track, but improves the quality of the mod, overall.
See: web pagehttp://forums.taldren.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=307422&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1[/url]

Also, I've found some shiplist aberations I'll have to fix: units I added recently enough. That's a TODO.

Work STILL continues..

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread - Xships in late
Post by: Nomad42 on April 22, 2004, 09:42:57 pm

Hi,

I love the OP 3.2 shiplist. Except for the x ships.

The xships should be in advanced. Early advanced. Not late, late. (Sounds a little silly doesn't it)

They are unbalanced for the late era.

Take any xship at any bvp in late era. It will beat any non +x ship in late era of the comparable bvp.

If you want proof meet me in GS and I play any bvp and race to demonstrate the problem.

Moving these ships to early advanced would may a more balanced late game.

I know these ships where in SFB in late but this is SFC.

What tends to happen instead of fly all these other cool ships you have in the late era you fly the dam x ships.
Why because at any bvp their the best ships.

So can you move late era xships to advanced era.

Thanks for you time.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread - Xships in late
Post by: FireSoul on April 23, 2004, 09:32:13 am

Quote:

Hi,

I love the OP 3.2 shiplist. Except for the x ships.

The xships should be in advanced. Early advanced. Not late, late. (Sounds a little silly doesn't it)

They are unbalanced for the late era.

Take any xship at any bvp in late era. It will beat any non +x ship in late era of the comparable bvp.

If you want proof meet me in GS and I play any bvp and race to demonstrate the problem.

Moving these ships to early advanced would may a more balanced late game.

I know these ships where in SFB in late but this is SFC.

What tends to happen instead of fly all these other cool ships you have in the late era you fly the dam x ships.
Why because at any bvp their the best ships.

So can you move late era xships to advanced era.

Thanks for you time.

In patch 2.5.5.0, the eras changed. Late Era now goes all the way up to 2299. 2300 is way too late to let Xships out. It has been a concious decision to leave the Xships in Late era, where they are, between the 2290 and 2300 range. No ships were released during that period.

If your problem is that other fleets (GSA) keep flying them, then just say "no xships" when negotiating. That's all.

-- Luc

Title: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 19, 2004, 05:47:41 pm

This thread are for corrections and problems within the OP+ 3.2 shiplist and models.

.. for starters..
Admin shuttles go speed 20. The game is using my entries I added for each race instead of the entries in the ftrlist.txt ..

.. why did I add shuttle entries for each race? For scriptability, and a little something that could be useful when SQL for OP Dynaverse servers come out.

.. I know how to fix this. In fact, I'll tell you: rename the shuttle entries in the shiplist. I call them "SHp"s now, for "player-controllable shuttle"s.

I may or may not release a OP+ 3.2.1 soon. We'll see.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 19, 2004, 11:21:46 pm

WOW!! You fixed a lot. I went through my old notes from the last version and just about everything I didn't like in 3.1 is now the way I want it in 3.2, especially with the Hydrans. Great work.

I only found one real error so far after a quick skim through the shiplist:

1) The Z-FLG should use a frigate model. It's currently pointing to a destroyer model. My master ship chart shows the Kzinti FLG uses a frigate hull. I hope my list is up to date.

Here are some personal comments clearly in the "opinion" category of things I'd like to see improved in the future. This is very nit picky I know:

1) Why not use Thu11's new skyhawk model to make a Sabrehawk by modding it to add an engine to the bottom?

2) I hope Thu11 is making a Seahawk model. Be nice to replace the taldren seahawk model with something in line with Thu11's series of rom models.

3) Wish we had better Rom Vulture and Demonhawk models.

4) Too bad Taldren didn't make Advanced FF models. By the way, I'm glad you fixed the "X-refitted" hull stuff. Great work.

5) Man that Gorn "Advanced Destroyer" GDX model is so "out of character" with the Thu11 stuff.

That's about it for now. Like I said only one error from me so far.

Your work is fabulous.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 20, 2004, 08:20:32 am

Quote:

There may be a problem with the F-CVTC and CVTCR.
I downloaded 3.2 without the models.
I tried to play with these ships in skirmish mode. Whenever I do so the mission will not load.

Agh. Confirmed.

However, easy to fix. I'll put up a replacement no-models installer.

I'll let you guys know when a replacement is up.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 20, 2004, 08:32:23 am

Quote:

Quote:

There may be a problem with the F-CVTC and CVTCR.
I downloaded 3.2 without the models.
I tried to play with these ships in skirmish mode. Whenever I do so the mission will not load.

Agh. Confirmed.
However, easy to fix. I'll put up a replacement no-models installer.

I'll let you guys know when a replacement is up.

There. A replacement for the no-models installer is up.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 20, 2004, 11:11:51 am

I just had a Klingon F-5C launch 4 Fed Raven 3 fighters in early era. I'm was flying a F-FF. I was playing NW fed-total war campaign.

Would this be a problem with the 3.2 shiplist, or a scripting problem with NW total war scripts?

I've got a screen shot to confirm this.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: DH123 on January 20, 2004, 11:19:07 am

Quote:

I just had a Klingon F-5C launch 4 Fed Raven 3 fighters in early era. I'm was flying a F-FF. I was playing NW fed-total war campaign.

Would this be a problem with the 3.2 shiplist, or a scripting problem with NW total war scripts?

I've got a screen shot to confirm this.

That is a bugged Evil Dave mission. I can comfirm this as I have seen it this weekend on D2 missions testing. .MET_NW6 something or other.

NOT a shiplist bug.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 20, 2004, 11:24:53 am

Quote:

That is a bugged Evil Dave mission. NOT a shiplist bug.

This makes sense. I checked the F-5C in the shiplist and it's clearly correct. Thanks DH123.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 24, 2004, 02:22:20 pm

TobinDax wrote:

Quote:

UM, I was looking at the orion pirate cartel light cruiser section and was attracted to the SAXO @158 bpv. It's one heavy weapon is a hellbore. The other Salvage variants change up the heavy and add or subtract an amd rack and 1 phaser. These other ships jump to 225 bpv to 251. Is this a boo-boo?

I'll check that later. Thanks.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Lepton1 on January 24, 2004, 07:58:40 pm

Bad model pointer for K-FT2. Points to XFT folder, but no model there.

All races FTs are pointing to xfrt which is empty for me.

Also some fed hulls are using an FECA.mod that points to an FECA model folder but there are no accompanying textures for that mod. There is an FCA.mod in there and textures for that mod however.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 24, 2004, 08:58:41 pm

Quote:

Bad model pointer for K-FT2. Points to XFT folder, but no model there.

All races FTs are pointing to xfrt which is empty for me.

Also some fed hulls are using an FECA.mod that points to an FECA model folder but there are no accompanying textures for that mod. There is an FCA.mod in there and textures for that mod however.

I know I've asked elsewhere, but for which installer?
Also, have you tried reinstalling?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Lepton1 on January 24, 2004, 09:03:57 pm

I haven't but I will. To add a bit more info, I in fact had installed the with models version first, then uninstalled it then installed the without models version. Thanks for looking into this.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 24, 2004, 09:30:12 pm

Quote:

I haven't but I will. To add a bit more info, I in fact had installed the with models version first, then uninstalled it then installed the without models version. Thanks for looking into this.

The very latest no_models installer (date Jan 20th) fixed the xfrt problem, which I will admit is a problem. Is that the one you have, or an earlier one?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Lepton1 on January 24, 2004, 09:40:29 pm

Yep I had the pre-20th version. I guess I missed there was a fix made to the earlier version. Apparently others missed it as well.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 24, 2004, 10:00:03 pm

Quote:

Yep I had the pre-20th version. I guess I missed there was a fix made to the earlier version. Apparently others missed it as well.

I'm not surprised. Can you make sure this knowledge is passed along if you encounter it too?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 25, 2004, 02:19:00 pm

A new opplus_32_no_models.exe installer has been generated. Enhancements include sanity checks and error popup messages when something seems wrong during models install/copy. No fixes were applied to the models themselves. Fetch and reinstall with this installer if you have any problems with past incarnations of the no_models installer.

http://klingon.stasis.ca/OP_plusrefit/opplus_32_no_models.exe

-- Luc

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 26, 2004, 10:17:36 am

.. btw.. I'm in the development process for version 3.2.1 (fixes and simple improvements release). It'll take some time since I touched up and modified about.. oh.. 96% of the model files. In fact, I've been having problems with the new _brk.mod. For some reason, some _brk.mod files will make the game CTD. Not good.

Soo, last night, I started writing a skirmish .SCR which loads up a ship for a particular model, and blows it up.. and repeats the process, once per model used, for all ships within that race. Load a ship, blow it up.. load a ship.. blow it up.. .. Quite fun.

Fixes:
1- Fix my mistake about the speed 20 shuttles.

2- Fix a critical bug where if you try to use the batteries on a ship that has non, the game CTDs. (Further inspection demonstrates that ALL other units in the shiplist, planets and "BOX" included, have at least 1 Battery.)

3- Redid models. In fact, I reviewed them all .. modified the vast majority of them and created new break models for
them.
Why? Because too much CPU power is wasted on models. Now, LODs (Levels Of Details) (at least 1 additional one) have been created for all models. .. also, why should I used the highest-poly model for the _BRK.mod? .. so I redid those with a lower # poly LOD as basis. This entire endeavour will take a lot of time, but will result in a more reasonable 'product'.
.. of course, the "no models" version is not affected by this.

-- Luc

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Pestalence on January 29, 2004, 02:43:56 pm

Using OP in combination of Firesoul's model checking script.... I found 2 errors...

L-DD

calssified as a DESTOYER when it needs to be DESTROYER

this was tested by editng in shipedit OP and used the dropdown menu. it listed DESTROYER and DESTOYER because it pulls the values from the shiplist... I selected DESTROYER and ren the script again.. it worked just fine and displayed the model.

F-AB

Taldren forgot to add Hull, UI and Ship Class

The ship class I assigned BASE STATION in shipedit OP's menu

The hull I made AB in Shipedit OP's dropdown menu

I set the UI to XAB in Shipedit OP's dropdown menu

doing this, the script found no errors on the models and no skipped entries...

Hope this helps and can't wait for the next version of OP +

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 29, 2004, 02:51:05 pm

Quote:

Using OP in combination of Firesoul's model checking script.... I found 2 errors...

L-DD

calssified as a DESTOYER when it needs to be DESTROYER

this was tested by editng in shipedit OP and used the dropdown menu. it listed DESTROYER and DESTOYER because it pulls the values from the shiplist... I selected DESTROYER and ren the script again.. it worked just fine and displayed the model.

F-AB

Taldren forgot to add Hull, UI and Ship Class

The ship class I assigned BASE STATION in shipedit OP's menu

The hull I made AB in Shipedit OP's dropdown menu

I set the UI to XAB in Shipedit OP's dropdown menu

doing this, the script found no errors on the models and no skipped entries...

Hope this helps and can't wait for the next version of OP +, whether fixes or new...

thanks Pestalence..
.. I think the XAB is supposed to be 'SPECIAL'. I'll have to check within the stock shiplist. If it's set as BaseStation, you could probably do base installation missions with it. (eep?)

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Pestalence on January 29, 2004, 02:57:38 pm

The shiplist doesn't havve it classified as special.. just pointing to the XAB model.. so I just assigned the UI to XAB to match the model...

If you have Shipedit OP, then pull it up... it is the very first entry to load in the display...

there is no Hull listed.. so I gave it AB

There was no Ship Class Listed.. so I assigned Base Station (Astroid Base after all)

and I assigned the UI to match the default Model listed...

as far as SFB goes on Astroid Bases.. you can enter the role any way you wish according to your sources as Taldren's entries for role is blank..

I think they just used it instead of making a new UI and model for it...

it was simply overlooked and not a major part of the game.. however with these fixes to it.. I have tried some Single Player missions in astroids in Fed space while playing Klingon.. it is calling the Astroid base more... so I can't complain... works fine in game, at least with stock scripts.. haven't tried on the custom scripts.

Thanks.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Pestalence on January 29, 2004, 03:00:55 pm

With that adjustment and no Role set for it .. it should show up in the bidding.. but haven't tested that far..

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 29, 2004, 03:22:46 pm

that's the thing: it shouldn't be set up to come up for bidding.
.. SPECIAL is still best, imho.. especially since there's no such thing as a Asteroid Base in SFB.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 29, 2004, 05:10:19 pm

Quote:

1) The Z-FLG should use a frigate model. It's currently pointing to a destroyer model. My master ship chart shows the Kzinti FLG uses a frigate hull. I hope my list is up to date.

Done.

Quote:

Here are some personal comments clearly in the "opinion" category of things I'd like to see improved in the future. This is very nit picky I know:

1) Why not use Thu11's new skyhawk model to make a Sabrehawk by modding it to add an engine to the bottom?

2) I hope Thu11 is making a Seahawk model. Be nice to replace the taldren seahawk model with something in line with Thu11's series of rom models.

3) Wish we had better Rom Vulture and Demonhawk models.

4) Too bad Taldren didn't make Advanced FF models. By the way, I'm glad you fixed the "X-refitted" hull stuff. Great work.

5) Man that Gorn "Advanced Destroyer" GDX model is so "out of character" with the Thu11 stuff.

1- saberhawk? Ah the SBH.. no.. I'll wait, for now. You can always make it.... The SBH has its own model slot.
2- Would be nice, yeah.
3- The Vulture is adequate, but of poor quality. The Demonhawk should like like some giant sparrowhawk/skyhawk half-breed..
4- what "X-refitted" stuff?
5- *shrug*

.. in all of the games where models are concerned, it's beyond my artistic ability to match what's already out there..
.. so.. I suggest you ask in the models forum.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 29, 2004, 05:11:24 pm

Quote:

Using OP in combination of Firesoul's model checking script.... I found 2 errors...

L-DD

calssified as a DESTOYER when it needs to be DESTROYER

this was tested by editng in shipedit OP and used the dropdown menu. it listed DESTROYER and DESTOYER because it pulls the values from the shiplist... I selected DESTROYER and ren the script again.. it worked just fine and displayed the model.

F-AB

Taldren forgot to add Hull, UI and Ship Class

The ship class I assigned BASE STATION in shipedit OP's menu

The hull I made AB in Shipedit OP's dropdown menu

I set the UI to XAB in Shipedit OP's dropdown menu

doing this, the script found no errors on the models and no skipped entries...

Hope this helps and can't wait for the next version of OP +

Fixes completed.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 29, 2004, 05:13:04 pm

All of the recent fixes above have not been released yet. This will have to wait till the next release.. however, at my end's devel version, it's done.

-- Luc

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Chris Jones on January 31, 2004, 10:09:37 pm

Hi Firesoul.

Fired up 3.2, 1st Skirmish I tried showed a missing model.

check the plr folder in OPPLUS/Models. My download has no files in it.

I verified the path with shipedit.

Upon further investigation the following folders have no files as well.

par
pcr
pdw
ppr
pslv

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on January 31, 2004, 11:56:53 pm

Hm. Tried reinstalling?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: Chris Jones on February 02, 2004, 06:17:37 am

Well that's odd.

I installed the files to another directory to look them over first.. In the cut and paste I did to put them in the right place those folders lost files..

Re-install made it all better.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 02, 2004, 09:43:32 am

Quote:

Well that's odd.

I installed the files to another directory to look them over first.. In the cut and paste I did to put them in the right place those folders lost files..

Re-install made it all better.

Ah-ha. Ok. I understand what happened.
.. See, these models are probably the ones COPIED from SFC:OP stock over to the OPPLUS directory. Until I have better models for these ships, these are placeholders for model separation.
.. other ships affected would have been a few police ships. Why?

ie: IPOL model. model copied from :IFF.
Difference? My model.siz lists the IPOL to be smaller than the IFF, allowing a difference.

In future installations, I'll add something.. maybe a small textfile that says "copied from assets/models/$MODEL" in the directories of stuff copied over. We'll see.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 02, 2004, 09:46:21 am

I need SFB-knowledgeable advice

I have made an error: I have commissioned ships, lyran and fed tugs, with 3 cargo pods. Someone has lately told me that there are supposed to be only 2 pods max on these ships, and that the 3rd pod weight notice on the SSD is just in case one of the 2 other pods is a double-weight pod.
.. similarly, the gorn tugs would have only 1 pod.

.. can someone confirm this for me? If this is true, than I have some ships to *delete*.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: jimmi7769 on February 02, 2004, 04:14:33 pm

Quote:

I need SFB-knowledgeable advice

I have made an error: I have commissioned ships, lyran and fed tugs, with 3 cargo pods. Someone has lately told me that there are supposed to be only 2 pods max on these ships, and that the 3rd pod weight notice on the SSD is just in case one of the 2 other pods is a double-weight pod.
.. similarly, the gorn tugs would have only 1 pod.

.. can someone confirm this for me? If this is true, than I have some ships to *delete*.

The Fed tug could carry 3 all in a row as long as they were single weight pods(eg cargo, starliner, etc) I think it was the only one that could haul 3. The Klingon, Kzinti, and Romulan could carry 2 and no more. The Gorn could carry 2 as well as the Lyran and Hydran but if they did the pods capability was serverly limited. Like a Lyran Tug with a Battlepod and a cargo pod couldn't use the pods disruptors. The ISC tug was like the Klingon and could only carry 2 and I think it had to always carry 2 for balance purposes.

Hope this helps.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 02, 2004, 04:28:57 pm

Quote:

Quote:

I need SFB-knowledgeable advice

I have made an error: I have commissioned ships, lyran and fed tugs, with 3 cargo pods. Someone has lately told me that there are supposed to be only 2 pods max on these ships, and that the 3rd pod weight notice on the SSD is just in case one of the 2 other pods is a double-weight pod.
.. similarly, the gorn tugs would have only 1 pod.

.. can someone confirm this for me? If this is true, than I have some ships to *delete*.

The Fed tug could carry 3 all in a row as long as they were single weight pods(eg cargo, starliner, etc) I think it was the only one that could haul 3. The Klingon, Kzinti, and Romulan could carry 2 and no more. The Gorn could carry 2 as well as the Lyran and Hydran but if they did the pods capability was serverly limited. Like a Lyran Tug with a Battlepod and a cargo pod couldn't use the pods disruptors. The ISC tug was like the Klingon and could only carry 2 and I think it had to always carry 2 for balance purposes.

Hope this helps.

It does. It means I did things right on the first try.
Where'd you come across this information, pray tell?

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: jimmi7769 on February 02, 2004, 04:42:41 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I need SFB-knowledgeable advice

I have made an error: I have commissioned ships, lyran and fed tugs, with 3 cargo pods. Someone has lately told me that there are supposed to be only 2 pods max on these ships, and that the 3rd pod weight notice on the SSD is just in case one of the 2 other pods is a double-weight pod.
.. similarly, the gorn tugs would have only 1 pod.

.. can someone confirm this for me? If this is true, than I have some ships to *delete*.

The Fed tug could carry 3 all in a row as long as they were single weight pods(eg cargo, starliner, etc) I think it was the only one that could haul 3. The Klingon, Kzinti, and Romulan could carry 2 and no more. The Gorn could carry 2 as well as the Lyran and Hydran but if they did the pods capability was serverly limited. Like a Lyran Tug with a Battlepod and a cargo pod couldn't use the pods disruptors. The ISC tug was like the Klingon and could only carry 2 and I think it had to always carry 2 for balance purposes.

Hope this helps.

It does. It means I did things right on the first try.
Where'd you come across this information, pray tell?

R Sections, tug/pod special rules and so forth. Let me dig my books out to be sure.

look at annex 3a

I was wrong Fed can only carry 2 which would mean none can carry more than 2 but the double weight pods make it move like it has 3. Hydran has a cargo pod built in and can only carry one other pod.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 04, 2004, 12:37:18 am

Quote:

R Sections, tug/pod special rules and so forth. Let me dig my books out to be sure.

look at annex 3a

I was wrong Fed can only carry 2 which would mean none can carry more than 2 but the double weight pods make it move like it has 3. Hydran has a cargo pod built in and can only carry one other pod.

"No tugs can carry 3 pods'. Gotcha. .. heh.. for the first time, I think the next revision of OP+ might have less ships in the list.
.. But that's okay, I think. No one never really see these, no matter if they're errors or not.

-- Luc

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 04, 2004, 12:38:36 am

Has anyone already done MRSs for their ftrlist.txt file? Want to share this data with me?
.. who knows.. with SQL for OP now deployed, this might come in handy. *shrug*

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 07, 2004, 03:19:39 pm

The L-BSXP has wrong YFA and YLA.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 07, 2004, 07:56:28 pm

Teaser:

Made a LHDW model .. and it'll be included in the next OP+. It seemed very odd to use a LDW model and size for something that's now classed as a Light Cruiser. Too small, and the # of engines is wrong. (4 engines)

More info:
Post in models forum..

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on February 07, 2004, 08:58:59 pm

Quote:

Has anyone already done MRSs for their ftrlist.txt file? Want to share this data with me?
.. who knows.. with SQL for OP now deployed, this might come in handy. *shrug*

I have tried to add them thru the fighter list but that didn't work... the game crashes when you launch one....

But using your shiplist shuttle... it works great.... can be used as a shuttle, SS, SP, and WW.

Just need to drop the speed a bit.... 20? really? come on!

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 07, 2004, 09:09:50 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Has anyone already done MRSs for their ftrlist.txt file? Want to share this data with me?
.. who knows.. with SQL for OP now deployed, this might come in handy. *shrug*

I have tried to add them thru the fighter list but that didn't work... the game crashes when you launch one....

But using your shiplist shuttle... it works great.... can be used as a shuttle, SS, SP, and WW.

Just need to drop the speed a bit.... 20? really? come on!

Problem is that via the shiplist, the heavy weapons are all the ships weapons.. .. we don't want droneracks on shuttles, you know?
.. I got rid of the shuttle entries. That incident will be remembered if ever another good idea comes up later.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on February 07, 2004, 09:26:36 pm

Actually, IIRC, the MRS does or can carry 2 drones. I would need to actually find the only SFB book I have... but if memory serves.... it was 1 Ph3, 2 drones, 1 ADD

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 07, 2004, 09:48:06 pm

Quote:

Actually, IIRC, the MRS does or can carry 2 drones. I would need to actually find the only SFB book I have... but if memory serves.... it was 1 Ph3, 2 drones, 1 ADD

it depends on the race..
.. and for it to have *2* 1-shot drones, I can't use the shiplist for them. I have to use the fighterlist.

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on February 07, 2004, 09:49:27 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, IIRC, the MRS does or can carry 2 drones. I would need to actually find the only SFB book I have... but if memory serves.... it was 1 Ph3, 2 drones, 1 ADD

it depends on the race..
.. and for it to have *2* 1-shot drones, I can't use the shiplist for them. I have to use the fighterlist.

In the shiplist... if you give a drone rack '0' reloads.... will it only have one shot?

Gonna try it.... BRB

Title: Re: OP+ 3.2 Corrections Thread
Post by: FireSoul on February 07, 2004, 09:53:11 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, IIRC, the MRS does or can carry 2 drones. I would need to actually find the only SFB book I have... but if memory serves.... it was 1 Ph3, 2 drones, 1 ADD

it depends on the race..
.. and for it to have *2* 1-shot drones, I can't use the shiplist for them. I have to use the fighterlist.

In the shiplist... if you give a drone rack '0' reloads.... will it only have one shot?

Gonna try it.... BRB

Of course not.

If it actually gives it 0 reloads, a A-rack will have 4 drones. Besides, the MRS has 2 *separate* drones that should be able to fire independantly. I'm not sure if it's in separate turns or the same.

-- Luc