Id like to get the rehardpointed planet meshes thrown in too to correct the oldest and laziest bug out there if we can do that, FS. And glad to see u messing with SFC.
count me in...
I am on FB as well
Firesoul. I would like to volunteer to make any sort of models you may need for this new rendition. I am currently looking for something to do with my spare time and I would love to get back into SFC modelling.
If you take a look at the my thread in the Modelling forum, you can see how far I've come in skill. Obviously, the items in that thread are very much my own style. I wouldn't mind doing a style more in-line with what you see in main-like trek (though, I'm sorry, but some of the designs you see in SFB suck).
If you'd rather keep your models, thats cool - but I have a request. The way you have the batch file set up, you have it so that a model can act for many ships (albeit, more than the stock shiplist). How hard would it be to make it so that each ship has its own model?
EDIT: Btw, If you'd like I can toss together a quickie model to illustrate an updated, but more main-stream trek look than what you see in my thread.
BTW: are there any plans to add the Y modules in? it looks like Y3 is primed to be released.
Sorry, i wasn't clear - I'm not saying that I'd like to see a different model for each individual ship included in the download, but rather a different directory created for each model and have the installer copy the original into the new. Example (BSing the designation just to illustrate it): Currently, the F-CA and the F-CAR point to the same model, "FECA\FECA.mod". Instead, have the F-CA point to "FCA\FCA.mod" and the F-CAR point to "FCAR\FCAR.mod". During the installation process, the installer copies the "FCA" folder to the "FCAR". The installer size doesn't change because its making multiple copies of the same source model, but people (like me) who want to have different F-CA and F-CAR models, can do so. The directory size inflates a boatload, though...
Just an idea, really.
Btw, I can do way lower-res models than what you see in the thread. In fact, low res tends to be easier for me. Take a look at my Fed-PF, for example:
([url]http://www.robinomicon.com/c/infusions/pro_download_panel/images/fpfs.jpg[/url])
Fair enough. Let me know if you need more or newer models, though :)
I would change them to something like you see on the Ulysses class - how the warp grill wraps around the back of the nacelle.
I don't have X1r, but if the nacelles on 1x-refits are supposed to be different I would use the nacelles that are currently on the BB/DNG as your 1x-refit nacelles, then go into p81-style for the full-blown X ships.
Sorry, Ulysses is model-grognard for the stock F-DN
([url]http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6029/08fdnulysses11.gif[/url])
The installer would get too big if each ship had its own model. Additionally, I'm trying to remain fully compatible to the old game as if it was 2001 again. That means 8 bit textures, and 3 LODs (levels of details). Crappy stuff. On purpose.
I will take individual suggestions, but you have to understand that I might turn down many just because it's.. too good. ;)
Note: The low res and poly count paid off on Saturday when Coopace 4.0 decided to generate a fleet of Lyrans against us. Since we were playing X-tech era, the script generated X-tech only X-tech Lyrans. There were at LEAST 20 PFs after us, not counting the 6-7 ships. Low rez matters! ;p
Here are the 3 Fed DN models I currently have for OP+. The last one on the right is the one I wonder if we should keep or replace, along with related models used for the F-BCE, F-BB, etc.
([url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/OP_plusrefit/screenshots/op+31_DN+_DN_DNG.JPG[/url])
The installer would get too big if each ship had its own model. Additionally, I'm trying to remain fully compatible to the old game as if it was 2001 again. That means 8 bit textures, and 3 LODs (levels of details). Crappy stuff. On purpose.
I will take individual suggestions, but you have to understand that I might turn down many just because it's.. too good. ;)
Note: The low res and poly count paid off on Saturday when Coopace 4.0 decided to generate a fleet of Lyrans against us. Since we were playing X-tech era, the script generated X-tech only X-tech Lyrans. There were at LEAST 20 PFs after us, not counting the 6-7 ships. Low rez matters! ;p
Yes, something I've been advocating for a long time to the newer modeler crowd how we need to keep the lod's and use lower poly meshes... something they dont understand... I've already pissed sum off, lol.
FS: The template for the planet hardpoint was done and tested and worked. We were successfully able to move hardpoints from the northern and southern lattitudes toward the equator and place phasers there that destroyed incoming shuttles and drones. Evens the playing field for plasma and DF races trying to do PA missions over the droners. Still cant put drones on planets, the AI fires them thru the mesh causing irritating collision noises. So DF weapons, even PlaD work when placing the hardpoint along the planets equator.
Right now, we should discuss the how to implement this, because even your no models version would have to have at least the planet meshes. Should we discuss using the better poly planet meshes with atmosphere detail techniques, or just rehardpoint the mesh and use the old textures because at this point, we only have a working test mesh.
Here are the 3 Fed DN models I currently have for OP+. The last one on the right is the one I wonder if we should keep or replace, along with related models used for the F-BCE, F-BB, etc.
([url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/OP_plusrefit/screenshots/op+31_DN+_DN_DNG.JPG[/url])
Replace the last one on the right! That's my vote!
It's not that they don't understand, its that most of the time, they don't care. They aren't players - they are artists. There are some, like myself, who understands the need for lower poly, and some of my meshes reflect that - othertimes, I don't care (example: my excelsior is 15k).
Id like to get the rehardpointed planet meshes thrown in too to correct the oldest and laziest bug out there if we can do that, ...
Right now, we should discuss the how to implement this, because even your no models version would have to have at least the planet meshes. Should we discuss using the better poly planet meshes with atmosphere detail techniques, or just rehardpoint the mesh and use the old textures because at this point, we only have a working test mesh.
* Y-LRx2
** based on template 'O-LRx'
** installing (1) DroB (reload/arc: 2) into mount 27
*** BPV increased by 9. (82 -> 91)
*** placing 1 ADD12 in mount 84.
** installing (1) DroB (reload/arc: 2) into mount 30
*** BPV increased by 9. (91 -> 100)
*** placing 1 ADD12 in mount 84.
** installing (1) DroB (reload/arc: 2) into mount 33
*** BPV increased by 9. (100 -> 109)
*** placing 1 ADD12 in mount 84.
** total ADD6: 0, total ADD12: 3
** Total BPV: 109
* P-SAL1
** based on template 'O-SAL'
** installing (1) Phot (reload/arc: FA) into mount 33
*** BPV increased by 0. (90 -> 90)
** installing (1) Phot (reload/arc: FA) into mount 36
*** BPV increased by 0. (90 -> 90)
** installing PlasmaD instead of drones. (+ 8 BPV)
** installing cloak: increasing BPV by 25. (Cloak cost: 15 BPV)
** this ship has enough drones and/or PLaD to require OAKDISC to fire all each turn (+ 15 BPV)
** Total BPV: 138
If you need a playtester who has a lot of practice building/balancing ships I 'd be more than happy to lend a hand :)
my e-mail is shalafi4 at gmail.com
I just sent a friend request
you should see Sirgod in my friends list by his real name
Ed K
Okay.. uhh..
With what?Here are the 3 Fed DN models I currently have for OP+. The last one on the right is the one I wonder if we should keep or replace, along with related models used for the F-BCE, F-BB, etc.
([url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/OP_plusrefit/screenshots/op+31_DN+_DN_DNG.JPG[/url])
Replace the last one on the right! That's my vote!
- VisualStudio 6 SP2 (not 3!) with the right modifications to compile SFC scripts
- VisualStudio 6 SP2 (not 3!) with the right modifications to compile SFC scripts
Shouldn't it be VC6SP5? (that is what we're building the serverkit with) Not to get into a big compiler discussion (later). But does it matter if they match? I thought it did?
Okay.. uhh..
With what?Here are the 3 Fed DN models I currently have for OP+. The last one on the right is the one I wonder if we should keep or replace, along with related models used for the F-BCE, F-BB, etc.
([url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/OP_plusrefit/screenshots/op+31_DN+_DN_DNG.JPG[/url])
Replace the last one on the right! That's my vote!
Hum-de-dum
([url]http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/battleship_couerdelion.jpg[/url])
drop the third and forth nacelles, drop the top rollbar and put the third nacelle where top rollbar was.
Are you doing anything to balance or expand the X-ships?
Firesoul, what would an acceptable polycount be for you?
FS let me do some searching. Most likely the planet model is on my crashed HD. I think there is a thread in the models forum talking about it, but even my template pic where all 24 hardpoints were illustrated is gone me thinks. Dont have time to look till tonight. Ill get back to u soon.
If push comes to shove I can make some new planets - They aren't that hard.
Hm.FireSoul you got in OP+4.0 the F-BCE as well as all the rest of the Fed DNs and still look ok to me.I believe DH like the DNH.It looks good I thought there would never be another OP+.
Here are my thoughts.. some requirements if you will:
- The F-BCE has to look like the Excelsior from the movies. (in fact it IS the Excelsior from the movies) (Just wondering if there's a better model than Taldren's).
- The DNs must look like it can support saucer separation with 1 nacelle and all the impulse.
- The BB must look like it can support saucer separation with 2 nacelles and all the impulse.
Thus I think a saucer strut would make sense to a secondary hull. Your model looks great on its own, but looks all 1-piece. ;(
We don't HAVE to change the models, but I am still wondering if there's better than what OP+ currently has, is all. Got other suggestions?
Would you want/need a trained monkey to add in the sfb ships that have come out since 4.0 was released? :crazy2:
R12 came out in June :P
Code Product Quantity Price/Ea. Total
5633 Module R12 1 $27.95 $27.95
Rulebook: Bound_hole_punched
SSD-book: Bound-unpunched
5632 Module Y2: Early Years II 1 $35.95 $35.95
Rulebook: Bound_hole_punched
SSD-book: Bound-unpunched
5634 Module Y3: Early Years III 1 $27.95 $27.95
Rulebook: Bound_hole_punched
SSD-book: Bound-unpunched
Shipping: 1- UPS - Continental US: $8.00
Sales Tax: $0.00
Total: $99.85
LOLOLOLOL... I have a copy of R12... I can get a mini shiplist with just the R 12 stuff put together probably by the end of the weekend if you want.
hehe alright... do you have a compiled list of known bugs to date by chance?
Well, if you're only rehardpointing the planets, then they would only require a .mod without textures. That'd be way less of a D/L. And it'd be quicker, cuz the alternative is to find nice looking planet models and hardpoint those, and it'd be tough to get all the ones we need.
However, you run into a problem with someone swapping out better planet models that are not hardpointed properly. To avoid that, we need to find or make better looking planet models so one wouldnt want to replace them. I tried once before... but the response was a little soft. Course that was just me asking in a non-friendly models forum... At the time I'm sure I was posting about excessive model polys or something... So with your and FOAS's backing, mb it could get done?
Cool, sometime tomorrow, ill post the diagram for the hardpoints. Where is shipedit?
"X-LRS1" => { 'template' => 'O-LRS', 'race' => 'OrionOrion',
'options' => {
27 => { 'weapon' => 'Phot', 'num' => '1', 'arc_reload' => 'FA', 'ref' => 27, },
}, },
"X-LRS+1" => { 'template' => 'O-LRS+', 'race' => 'OrionOrion',
'refit_base_class' => 'X-LRS1',
'options' => {
27 => { 'weapon' => 'Phot', 'num' => '1', 'arc_reload' => 'FA', 'ref' => 27, },
}, },
"X-LRSx1" => { 'template' => 'O-LRSx', 'race' => 'OrionOrion',
'refit_base_class' => 'X-LRS+1',
'options' => {
27 => { 'weapon' => 'Phot', 'num' => '1', 'arc_reload' => 'FA', 'ref' => 27, },
}, },
"Phot" => { 'weapon' => 'Phot', 'BPV' => 0, },
"Dis1" => { 'weapon' => 'Dis1', 'BPV' => 0, 'min_sizeclass' => 4, },
"Dis2" => { 'weapon' => 'Dis2', 'BPV' => 1, 'min_sizeclass' => 4, },
"Dis3" => { 'weapon' => 'Dis3', 'BPV' => 2, 'min_sizeclass' => 3, },
"Dis4" => { 'weapon' => 'Dis4', 'BPV' => 3, 'min_sizeclass' => 2, },
"Dis3X" => { 'weapon' => 'Dis3', 'BPV' => 2, 'min_sizeclass' => 4, 'xtech' => 1, },
"Dis4X" => { 'weapon' => 'Dis4', 'BPV' => 3, 'min_sizeclass' => 3, 'xtech' => 1, },
* X-LRS1
** based on template 'O-LRS'
** template 'O-LRS' loaded.
** setting race to: OrionOrion
** UI: PFF mounts: 27, 30, 33, 60, 63, 78, 81, 84
** have: center:1 HDW:0 wing/any:0
** want: (1) Phot reload/arc: FA
** want: center:0 HDW:0 wing/any:1
** YFA: -13, YLA: 7
** installing (1) Phot (reload/arc: FA) into mount 27
*** BPV increased by 0. (68 -> 68)
** Total BPV: 68
* X-LRS+1
** based on template 'O-LRS+'
** template 'O-LRS+' loaded.
** setting race to: OrionOrion
** UI: PFF mounts: 27, 30, 33, 60, 63, 78, 81, 84
** have: center:1 HDW:0 wing/any:0
** want: (1) Phot reload/arc: FA
** want: center:0 HDW:0 wing/any:1
** refit base: X-LRS1 refit: shield
** YFA: 6, YLA: 36
** installing (1) Phot (reload/arc: FA) into mount 27
*** BPV increased by 0. (73 -> 73)
** Total BPV: 73
* X-LRSx1
** based on template 'O-LRSx'
** template 'O-LRSx' loaded.
** setting race to: OrionOrion
** UI: PFF mounts: 27, 30, 33, 60, 63, 78, 81, 84
** have: center:1 HDW:0 wing/any:0
** want: (1) Phot reload/arc: FA
** want: center:0 HDW:0 wing/any:1
** refit base: X-LRS+1 refit: PARTIAL X REFIT
** YFA: 33, YLA: 999
** installing (1) Phot (reload/arc: FA) into mount 27
*** BPV increased by 0. (82 -> 82)
** Total BPV: 82
Well, dude - I think many of us weren't even expecting to see a new version of OP+, therefor, I doubt any of us would mind waiting (at least) or helping (where we can). Just do your thing, man. We got your back.
I love it when you talk like that. :smitten: Don't tempt me so.There were a lot of problems solved, first. One of the is that I have all the UIs in code, which helps determine if putting a weapon in a specific mountpoint will make it viewable in-game. Another was the automatic ADD generation for DroG and DroGX weapons.
I would love to write the algorithm to fill out a pirate shiplist against sfb constraints. Generate them all with the push of a button and then have the definitions in code on hand...
But I have this regexp problem to work on today and a matlab program to write (which of course I will overdo to the umpteenth degree).What's the regexp question? ;p
P.S. I'm curious about how being a bilingual Canadian has gone down there, if it has affected the experience at all or how you are received. Also curious about your daughter... look out world! Got a post somewhere with such updates?I have a 7-year old autistic son who is having a grand ol' ball using hulu to view OLD cartoons. I think he just watched an episode of He-Man. ;p As for being French Canadian, my English is excellent and I'm doing all right. I miss being able to casually speak French (specifically, our French) for an extended period of time. .. but it doesn't affect my work or living at all. I'm doing ok. ;)
have a question? Any way to add new ship UIs to ship edit? My luck new projects starting and my machine is down.
$ file *
(...)
RCX-a.se: data
RCX-n.se: data
RDD-a.se: data
RDD-a.ui: data
RDD-n.se: data
RDD-n.ui: data
Nice work on the mountpoint validation. :thumbsup:
My regexp problem was latex math delimiters... whoever decided to use both single and double dollar signs was a sadistic bastard. I opted to skip the headache and replace the single dollar sign delimiters with math tags consistent with WikiMedia's implementation, but keeping the other three standard latex math delimiters. I was constrained by the framework I was working in (jQuery/TiddlyWiki) but came up with a pretty good compromise today.
[url]http://myweb.dal.ca/haines/#PluginMathJax[/url]
I know pretty much where all the browsers stand now. Next up, ChemDoodle. It won't be so easy. So maybe I'll whip off my overdone matlab app first. ;D
Glad to hear things are going well. Turn the young fellow on to Hercules and Rocky and Bullwinkle if he has not discovered them yet. G-Force was frickin awesome too.
Basic vs Extended Regular Expressions
In basic regular expressions the meta-characters ?, +, {, |, (, and ) lose their
special meaning; instead use the backslashed versions \?, \+, \{, \|, \(, and \).
Traditional egrep did not support the { meta-character, and some egrep implementations
support \{ instead, so portable scripts should avoid { in grep -E patterns and should
use [{] to match a literal {.
GNU grep -E attempts to support traditional usage by assuming that { is not special if
it would be the start of an invalid interval specification. For example, the command
grep -E '{1' searches for the two-character string {1 instead of reporting a syntax
error in the regular expression. POSIX.2 allows this behavior as an extension, but
portable scripts should avoid it.
As far as I know Javascript/Actionscript's regexp implementation is no different than perl's. If the expression works in perl and then it should work in js and vice versa. (ditto for php...) A regexp is a regexp is a regexp is it not? (don't want to get too far off track here though)
Maybe I got confused by your saying that $$ was confusing you. (To me, it's either a special variable in perl and bash: the current process's PID.. or a $ at the end of the line in regexp).
"Lor$em ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed $4.95 do eiusm$$od te$$mpor incididunt $$ut$$ labo$re$ et dolore ma$$gna$$ aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, $quis$ nostrud exe$rcitati$on ullamco$ laboris $nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit $14.95 on sale in vo$$lupta$$te velit $esse$ cillum dolore eu f$ugi$at nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proide$$nt, s$$unt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit $$anim$$ id est laborum."
/\${1}([\s\S]*?)\${1}|\${2}([\s\S]*?)\${2}/gm(the / /gm are wrappers for the regexp in javascript, the m and g specify multiline and global)/\${2}([\s\S]*?)\${2}/gmworks just fine for double tags. I just did not want to try and figure out a way to do it, I don't know them well enough. Then, it would pretty much require escaping dollar signs in the wiki text... I don't like that I want it to all work naturally.Truth is, there are 2 'levels' of regular expressions that I know. Perl and sed use Extended regexp.
This wouldn't work for both (I expect I know why):Code: [Select]/\${1}[\s\S]*?\${1}|\${2}[\s\S]*?\${2}/gm(the / /gm are wrappers for the regexp in javascript, the m and g specify multiline and global)
But:Code: [Select]/\${2}[\s\S]*?\${2}/gmworks just fine for double tags. I just did not want to try and figure out a way to do it, I don't know them well enough. Then, it would pretty much require escaping dollar signs in the wiki text... I don't like that I want it to all work naturally.
I understood *? to be a lazy match of the previous token as opposed to the greedy match of just *
As I understand it ? on its own is as you describe (0,1), but *? in sequence is (0,last match) and +? is (1,next match) - if I have it all right.
The other approach I have been taking (currently in the plugin is using +? instead, which penalises empty tags by not parsing them, still not sure if this is a good call or not though, as users may want to insert blank tag for access by other scripts or macros at some point...)
I'l give it a whirl without the ? to see if I can catch single dollar sign tags too, but I think it is just too evil.
International formats for currency don't matter so much to me. That is part of the whole point here, to come up with regexps and tags that do not require that complication to be considered. Just parse the math and let the user type lone dollar signs as usual. If I could parse math tagged in single dollar signs too that would be great, but just the thought of coming up with a regexp to do it makes my head hurt.
I was wondering if anything is going to be done to the fighter list?
FireSoul do you miss Ottawa and were ever a Senator's fan if so do you ever go and see them when in LA?
Just a quick thought guys.
I don't know how 'compatable' the early years ships are with SFC (i.e. if the weapons are different), but I've seen the shiplist # of ships limitation mentioned a few times now.
If early years ships are implementable (i.e. use basically the same weapons which are available in sfc), you could do a separate shiplist for the early years, with ship availability ending sometime before late/general war era. The 4.1+ list would remain unchanged, but we'd be able to use the other shiplist if we wanted to play early era.
I was just wondering as some of the fighter like Fed mid era are under powered and late era ISC are overpowered imho.I was wondering if anything is going to be done to the fighter list?
No. Why?
I was just wondering as some of the fighter like Fed mid era are under powered and late era ISC are overpowered imho.I was wondering if anything is going to be done to the fighter list?
No. Why?
Welcome back FS!!!!!
welcome back FS! I look forward to your latest creation
Firesoul, wow! I haven't seen you online in years. Great to see ya again. I do have one question though,
will this OP 4.1 have a "no models" version? My system just can't handle a lot of graphically intense models.
I was so happy that you guys made a "no models" version of 4.0.
Also, I can understand what you mean about the Pirate slots, there are a huge numer of ships in those
sections. I worked on a personal mode called "BAM" (Basic Action Mode) that only has a fraction of the models that 4.0 has, but the pirate slot took me the longest to get done (and I only have two cartels added to make it simple)
so I know how it goest with all the option mounts and variations of Pirate vessels. The intended perpose
of "BAM" (mostly just for GSA games) was to give beginning players a very "balanced" mode, but after I
released it, most players didn't think much of it. I could give ya a copy of it if you wish to see what you think?
I'd really like to see the Klingon Movie Ship (the D7T) equipped with a cloaking device. It might make that ship feel less like a glass cannon. It also makes some sense from the perspective of why the Klingons didn't make widespread use of the cloak. (the rate of fire of their disrupters were just so fast that the constant cloaking and uncloaking made it tactically, although not strategically, useless) Klingon Ships with Photon Torpedoes would make more efficient use of the cloak, although not as efficient as the Roms do.
I'd really like to see the Klingon Movie Ship (the D7T) equipped with a cloaking device. It might make that ship feel less like a glass cannon. It also makes some sense from the perspective of why the Klingons didn't make widespread use of the cloak. (the rate of fire of their disrupters were just so fast that the constant cloaking and uncloaking made it tactically, although not strategically, useless) Klingon Ships with Photon Torpedoes would make more efficient use of the cloak, although not as efficient as the Roms do.You can make up your own using shipedit and just add cloaking cost to 15 or 20 and when I do mine I just replace the dizzies with photons on the sides.
I'd really like to see the Klingon Movie Ship (the D7T) equipped with a cloaking device. It might make that ship feel less like a glass cannon. It also makes some sense from the perspective of why the Klingons didn't make widespread use of the cloak. (the rate of fire of their disrupters were just so fast that the constant cloaking and uncloaking made it tactically, although not strategically, useless) Klingon Ships with Photon Torpedoes would make more efficient use of the cloak, although not as efficient as the Roms do.
I tried 4.1 out with Knight tonight on GSA and it worked smoothly. Nice job Firesoul!
- Tossing out some ships, because by now I've run out of space in the shiplist. Guaranteed.
- Tossing out some ships, because by now I've run out of space in the shiplist. Guaranteed.
Like some of the never played FF's and commando ships? Some commando ships are useful, most are not. Campaign wise.... a LOT of ships in the SG list get tossed.
There seems to be something wrong with the installer as it seems damaged I dled it but couldn't get it to install.I am getting NSIS error.
hey FS, you still going to use multiple folders for the models? or are you going to just point to one instance for the model files?
It seems to to be fine so far not sure what you are looking for oh there is a Fed Heavy War Destroyer that in space dock all is blacked out.This has 2 fighters in it.
This is the ship FireSoul F-HDWXG if I see anymore I will let you know.
This is the ship FireSoul F-HDWXG if I see anymore I will let you know.
I confirm the problem.
Digging into it. Ah. The number of shuttle 'base' is higher than the number of shuttle 'max'. I will write an automated check for this and see if I can detect the problem with other ships. If I do, I'll report them here.
# ship F-DWX: shuttle_base is more than shuttle max! (base: 3, max: 2)
# ship F-HDWXG: shuttle_base is more than shuttle max! (base: 4, max: 3)
# ship L-BOX: shuttle_base is more than shuttle max! (base: 1, max: 0)
# ship Y-D6D: shuttle_base is more than shuttle max! (base: 3, max: 2)
hey FS, you still going to use multiple folders for the models? or are you going to just point to one instance for the model files?
I leave the stock models from the game alone, in Assets\Models\ . That way, an uninstall is easy and clean. This is the main reason I have a separate folder for the new models, under OPPLUS\models\ .
So to answer your question: separate. Multiple.
The original SFC:OP shiplist has 2370 ship entries.
The OP Plus Refit 4.0 shiplist has 5958 ship entries.
I was going to mention F-DWX but I see you found it anyways this is about your best OP+ FS.
Firesoul nice to see you back working on this. it is too bad that there are limits to the ship list
and that SFB has grown so big that you would practically half to set up individual mods to play
certain time Lines in the game. Especially with the Y modules getting up #3 and alot of other material.
Yet the fact that people are still working on this game is a testament to how good it actually is and
I salute the work that you've done. keep up the great work. ;D
Nice work Firesoul.
Thank you for sharing this. I can't wait to see the final product.
BTW: in 2003, you posted about a Romulan version of the IKV Hood... I recall reading about the various BCH/DN and War Eagle/Battlehawk variations for kitbashing. Was that ever completed? Will it and the IKV Hood make it into 4.1?
Please advise.
No, I reread that post on the Romulan Hood while attempting to find Atrahasis' last batch of Romulan and Klingon models. Hopefully somebody will repost them.
On another note, any chance you will consider adding the Tholian ships that don't require the Web Spinners or proprietary Tholian technology?
I have always understood that SFC: OP in it's current state will not fully support Tholians and Andromedans as they are presented in SFB.
However, if you are willing to add Andromedans as monsters why not add some Tholian ships to further vary the encounters with the standard Empire/Pirates or monsters?
Please advise.
I was being inarticulate again... sorry Firesoul.
I know the Tholians weren't monsters, LOL.
I was hoping you'd consider using a cartel slot for Tholians... I understand your position however.
"Let's add what's missing from SFB. .. but let's do it as if we were Taldren so that we can preserve the good feel of the game. Its style must match Taldren's, as if it was an extension and continuation of their work."
if (global_sl.mIsEnhancedShiplist()) {
// filter based on Class type
// We don't want DNs and BBs, bases, etc.
std::list< eEnhancedClassTypes > enhancedClassTypeList;
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassFrigate);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassDestroyer);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassWarDestroyer);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassLightCruiser);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassWarCruiser);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassHeavyWarDestroyer);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassMediumCruiser);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassHeavyCruiser);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassNewHeavyCruiser);
enhancedClassTypeList.push_back(kEClassHeavyBattlecruiser);
global_sl.Subset(enhancedClassTypeList);
// filter based on wanted roles
// Skip Cargo ships, Bases, Repair ships, hospital ships, etc.
std::list< eEnhancedRoles > rolesList;
rolesList.push_back(kLineShip);
rolesList.push_back(kWarShip);
rolesList.push_back(kLeader);
rolesList.push_back(kDroneBombardmentShip);
rolesList.push_back(kEscort);
rolesList.push_back(kCarrier);
rolesList.push_back(kPFTender);
rolesList.push_back(kFastCruiser);
rolesList.push_back(kMauler);
rolesList.push_back(kPolice);
global_sl.Subset(rolesList);
// filter based on availability
// Skip kConjectural, kUnique
std::list< eEnhancedProductionAvailability > enhancedAvailabilityList;
enhancedAvailabilityList.push_back(kRare);
enhancedAvailabilityList.push_back(kCommon);
enhancedAvailabilityList.push_back(kMany);
global_sl.Subset(enhancedAvailabilityList);
} else {
std::list< eHullType > hullTypeList;
hullTypeList.push_back(kFF);
hullTypeList.push_back(kDD);
hullTypeList.push_back(kCL);
hullTypeList.push_back(kCA);
global_sl.Subset(hullTypeList);
}
mCreateShip( typeid( tMineControllerTeamShip ), "I-FSPh", kStartPosition_V,
kNoMetaShipID, -1, 0, 0, -1, -1, NULL, kDefaultShipOptions );
The forge is at 2288. Reset of you need to but otherwise a reset is not due yet. Thanks.
How is it power hungry? the four extra dizzies take 16 power to overload, has the same move cost, everything. Am I missing something?
I'll put in my two cent's
Firesoul....I have not been playing that long on multiplayer and I am real new to this site..
But I have to tell you.....some of this is AMAZING....I loaded your 4.1 and WOW......from what I have seen so far (which is very little) I like what you have done...the Hydran D7X is real cool as are a few others. my main question is...is it acceptable to change some firing arcs if the preset ones just don't work for you? or how about swapping weapons like... removing 2 fusions and putting in 2 hellbores..
Hydran D7 hope work is going fine FS?
Hydran D7 hope work is going fine FS?
huh?
I don't quite follow. I didn't touch the D7H except to add a partial X refit version. H-D7Hx.
How is it power hungry? the four extra dizzies take 16 power to overload, has the same move cost, everything. Am I missing something?
Yea. His sarcasm. :crazy2:
Hydran D7 hope work is going fine FS?
huh?
I don't quite follow. I didn't touch the D7H except to add a partial X refit version. H-D7Hx.
That's what I meant....the partial X...
Does that include X Photons?Hydran D7 hope work is going fine FS?
huh?
I don't quite follow. I didn't touch the D7H except to add a partial X refit version. H-D7Hx.
That's what I meant....the partial X...
It's unfortunate that SFC doesn't have X-fusions (no cooldown!) or X hellbores.. or X ESGs.. or.. etc.
Otherwise, a lot of ships would have been a lot more interesting with the XP refit. ;)
No....
Every other weapon that I have found has an X counter part........in some form or another whether it is actually called an X or Heavy weapon.....even plasmas got upgraded.....but not EGS's, Hellbores or Fusion's......that in and of itself unbalances the game when playing Hydran or Lyran against any other race....even the fracking ISC gets to benefit from the X refits...like the PPD's are not bad enough...
Does that include X Photons?
It's unfortunate that SFC doesn't have X-fusions (no cooldown!) or X hellbores.. or X ESGs.. or.. etc.
Otherwise, a lot of ships would have been a lot more interesting with the XP refit. ;)
No....
Every other weapon that I have found has an X counter part........in some form or another whether it is actually called an X or Heavy weapon.....even plasmas got upgraded.....but not EGS's, Hellbores or Fusion's......that in and of itself unbalances the game when playing Hydran or Lyran against any other race....even the fracking ISC gets to benefit from the X refits...like the PPD's are not bad enough...
Is that from a SFC or SFB perspective, because G2s are so cheese.
I have to agree......when did they nix the overloaded phasers?In X1-R. in the section called.. well.. "Changes to the Advanced Technology Rules since module X1 was published"
I have to agree......when did they nix the overloaded phasers?In X1-R. in the section called.. well.. "Changes to the Advanced Technology Rules since module X1 was published"
I may have missed it earlier in the thread, but are you planning to include some of the weird ships like the LDR DFDD or the ISC CW?
Ships like them are too good for their points, but it wasn't a fault of OP+ 4.0, it is just the fact that they were in SFB in the first place (like how the KHK has been in SFC since the beginning), and that SFC doesn't have a good way of limiting conjectural ships.
In a Dynaverse campaign, ships like that can be limited or erased from the shipyard, but from a Gamespy/skirmish perspective, there is nothing to keep players from flying those ships. For example, why use the regular Lyran CWLP or the ISC CLZ when better ships are just a couple points more? I wish I could think of a way to limit the cheese ships, but I can't think of anything that isn't used currently in Gamespy (like simply setting the BPV to avoid most of the cheesy ships). Is limiting cheese in a skirmish setting within the scope of 4.1?
Durn'd cheeze. ;)
I do use heavy photons with ph. type 1s in modded shiplist but never or hardly use overloads.No....
Every other weapon that I have found has an X counter part........in some form or another whether it is actually called an X or Heavy weapon.....even plasmas got upgraded.....but not EGS's, Hellbores or Fusion's......that in and of itself unbalances the game when playing Hydran or Lyran against any other race....even the fracking ISC gets to benefit from the X refits...like the PPD's are not bad enough...
Is that from a SFC or SFB perspective, because G2s are so cheese.
Ok. Stop it right there!
The Ph-G2, the PLaE, PLaX, The "Heavy" phasers and "Heavy" Photons and "Heavy" Disruptors were all Taldren inventions, inaccurate SFB-wise and way overpowered. (especially the Ph-G2)
The PhX is.. close to the truth, but even it isn't right now-a-days: they removed the Overloading (1.5X damage) but kept something SFC doesn't have: the pulse.
ie: a Ph-1X can pulse as 2 Ph3s defensively.
.. and that's just the beginning. There's more.
I am speechless. I can't really respond to that properly..
.. except to start up the VM and try to get a couple of those F6 variants done.
I am speechless. I can't really respond to that properly..
.. except to start up the VM and try to get a couple of those F6 variants done.
Seriously, let me know how I can help :)
wow.. that was.. wow.
.. Ok. I wanna hear more about the lost potential.. !
You see, The army, Marines and Air Force have it easy in this regard. They have first person shooters, very realistic ones at that, Air Force has simulators from the WWI up to present day, however the navy has, well, I don't know, what, harpoon? If that is the case, harpoon is very hard to get into and not many kids will have the attention span to actually want to play it. ...
Update please...
Update please...
For day-to-day updates see:
[url]http://pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php/OPPLus_Project_Blog[/url] ([url]http://pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php/OPPLus_Project_Blog[/url])
Note: I certainly don't work on this every day. I have a full time job with increasing responsibilities. I have a family, and I've decided that instead of getting sick of working on SFC stuff that I'd play other things in the mean time if I felt like it. ;>
-- FS
Update please...
For day-to-day updates see:
[url]http://pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php/OPPLus_Project_Blog[/url] ([url]http://pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php/OPPLus_Project_Blog[/url])
Note: I certainly don't work on this every day. I have a full time job with increasing responsibilities. I have a family, and I've decided that instead of getting sick of working on SFC stuff that I'd play other things in the mean time if I felt like it. ;>
-- FS
Firesoul,
Forum writing can never convey the true tone or nuiance of a conversation. I had questions about whether or not OP+ 4.1 will fit into (or not) SFC: EAW CE. My inquiry was poorly written after I read the Update threads that were posted recently in the general forum.
Most everyone here, understands that family and real life come first. I have a similar situation to yours in that regard. No intent of 'get on with it' was ever meant to be imparted in my poorly written update request. I understand about the non-SFC games part too. I am also anxiously awaiting the release of a Star Wars: EAW/FOC Clone Wars mod called Republic at War. I have a new laptop myself that I am using to help contribute to the ongoing development of Wagic: The Home Brew (basically, Magic the Gathering card game for PSP), playing Mechwarrior IV Mercenaries (from Mektek.net), Crysis and the Mechwarrior Living Legends Mod for it, until the next version of OP+ gets released. At that time I expect to install SFC: OP. Sorry about any misunderstanding.
Thanks for your continued support of the SFC community.
P. S.
I have a retexture of the FNT you might be interested in having a look at. I can't find the CV program anywhere to take a quick picture of it.
Since NW was mentioned, I'm wondering whether new items are being added to match new scripts, like race specific asteroid bases, different spacedocks for different eras, and that sort of thing.
This mod has always left a dry taste in my mouth. I tried it several times and it's just "meh" whatever. Why you people bow down and suck up to this arrogant, egoistic, clown that created this mod is beyond me and many others. Oh well, some people just went ahead and got a life after SFC and some people didn't.
If you "got a life after SFC," then why are you bothering posting on a SFC forum?
This mod has always left a dry taste in my mouth. I tried it several times and it's just "meh" whatever. Why you people bow down and suck up to this arrogant, egoistic, clown that created this mod is beyond me and many others. Oh well, some people just went ahead and got a life after SFC and some people didn't.
1- Yes, I have an ego. Deal with it. Has nothing to do with the mod.
2- I don't particularly want to be sucked up to either! lol .. but I secretly enjoy it. (not so secretly now, I suppose)
3- Yes I am arrogant.
4- No, I'm not a clown.
5- If you don't like it, don't play it.
I don't have a problem about you not liking the mod. Make your own.
-- FS
PS. My original response, which I backspaced and started over, would have probably gotten me banned from these forums.
This mod has always left a dry taste in my mouth. I tried it several times and it's just "meh" whatever. Why you people bow down and suck up to this arrogant, egoistic, clown that created this mod is beyond me and many others. Oh well, some people just went ahead and got a life after SFC and some people didn't.
1- Yes, I have an ego. Deal with it. Has nothing to do with the mod.
2- I don't particularly want to be sucked up to either! lol .. but I secretly enjoy it. (not so secretly now, I suppose)
3- Yes I am arrogant.
4- No, I'm not a clown.
5- If you don't like it, don't play it.
I don't have a problem about you not liking the mod. Make your own.
-- FS
PS. My original response, which I backspaced and started over, would have probably gotten me banned from these forums.
Wait a minute! Didn't you just post that you have all these limited time issues, yet it took minutes for you to post a response. Here is a piece of advice, Kitty. Shut the hell up and get back to work on the mod. You have a dead game to support.
Wait a minute! Didn't you just post that you have all these limited time issues, yet it took minutes for you to post a response. Here is a piece of advice, Kitty. Shut the hell up and get back to work on the mod. You have a dead game to support.Good-Bye then, Banned for trolling, baiting, not maintaining a civil manner, and disruptive behavior.. simple as that.
PS. My original response, which I backspaced and started over, would have probably gotten me banned from these forums.
I may or may not have a life but I'm not the one down on my knees sucking off the kitty.
You have a dead game to support.
I'll flame you back tonight.
Good-Bye then, Banned for trolling, baiting, not maintaining a civil manner, and disruptive behavior.. simple as that.
Nah Firesoul. There is no reason at all for a person with 5 posts to their name to come in and bash people in every single post. we don't like our honored guests being treated that way.
This is your guys home as much as it is ours, and I know I speak for all of us, when I say, we won't let our family be talked to that way.
Stephen
Nah Firesoul. There is no reason at all for a person with 5 posts to their name to come in and bash people in every single post. we don't like our honored guests being treated that way.
This is your guys home as much as it is ours, and I know I speak for all of us, when I say, we won't let our family be talked to that way.
Stephen
Though he/she/it makes a good point: I shouldn't be an honoured guest. I think all SFC players should be honoured guest at this point on, many more than I since I was away from this community for about 5 years or so.
I may or may not have a life but I'm not the one down on my knees sucking off the kitty.
You gotta graduate from the goats, first, bucko.
Shoot dude, I think all of you guys are honored guests. From the standbys of Dizzy and Age, to those who don't post that often like Indyshark, and Ravok.Nah Firesoul. There is no reason at all for a person with 5 posts to their name to come in and bash people in every single post. we don't like our honored guests being treated that way.
This is your guys home as much as it is ours, and I know I speak for all of us, when I say, we won't let our family be talked to that way.
Stephen
Though he/she/it makes a good point: I shouldn't be an honoured guest. I think all SFC players should be honoured guest at this point on, many more than I since I was away from this community for about 5 years or so.
You have a dead game to support.
You have a dead game to support.
The scene - some little village in video game land...
Trauma Center WII: Bring out your dead...
Call of Duty: Got one here
flops Starfleet Command: Empires at War onto cart
EAW: I'm not dead yet
TC: here you go, 9 pence...
I'm sure we know how the rest of the scene will go, when EAW gets off the cart after being throughly modded and blows CoD out of the skies... :)
Well, I mean, seriously, what does call of duty have? A couple of tanks? Even a "dead" starship usually still has one Phaser left, and I'll take one Phaser bank over a company of tanks any day.
At least FireSoul can legitimately claim he gets laid regularly.
At least FireSoul can legitimately claim he gets laid regularly.
Pffft, pics or it's lies.
Regards,
What's your plan for Partial X refits? Before I gave up we were going to add them to the SGO mod but all it was going to be wasw the additional power from XPR generators and converting Ph-2 to Ph-1. Everything else was either impossible to impement or OTT.
Z-CVAx
Z-CVAR : is size class 2
Z-CVAR : 1*DroB upgraded to 1*DroB for 11BPV.
increased the number of ADD12 from GX racks from 0 to 1.
Z-CVAR : 2*DroB upgraded to 2*DroB for 22BPV.
increased the number of ADD12 from GX racks from 1 to 3.
Z-CVAR : 2*ADD12 upgraded to 2*DroB for 22BPV.
increased the number of ADD12 from GX racks from 3 to 5.
Z-CVAR : 1*DroB upgraded to 1*DroB for 11BPV.
increased the number of ADD12 from GX racks from 5 to 6.
Z-CVAR : 2*Ph1 upgraded to 2*PhX for 2BPV.
Z-CVAR : 3*Ph1 upgraded to 3*PhX for 3BPV.
Z-CVAR : 2*Ph1 upgraded to 2*PhX for 2BPV.
There are 6 ADD12 to set up
NOT ENOUGH ROOM. won't allocate add12 (6): not enough mountpoints (0) available!
now allocating to non-mountpoints. Fix it later!
Z-CVAR: batteries increased from 7 to 19 for 18 BPV.
Z-CVAR: APR increased from 5 to 10 for 12.5 BPV.
Z-CVAR: BPV increased from 252 to 356
NOT ENOUGH ROOM. won't allocate add12 (6): not enough mountpoints (0) available!
now allocating to non-mountpoints. Fix it later!
Ok.. That should be the last of the playable ships from R12..
I just uploaded an OP+ Pre-alpha 3 installer. (why 'pre-alpha' and not 'beta'? It's because it's not just testing, but I'm still developping it and changing things, adding things)
Download: [url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/OP_plusrefit/opplus_41_models_20110410185624.exe[/url] ([url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/OP_plusrefit/opplus_41_models_20110410185624.exe[/url])
More Details: [url]http://pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php/OPPlus_4.1_project_wiki#Pre_Alpha_3[/url] ([url]http://pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php/OPPlus_4.1_project_wiki#Pre_Alpha_3[/url])
# of shiplist entries so far.. 8250.
-- FS
QuoteNOT ENOUGH ROOM. won't allocate add12 (6): not enough mountpoints (0) available!
now allocating to non-mountpoints. Fix it later!
What do you mean? How can there be not enough room? Are there fixed limits? Is there a limit to how many hardpoints a ship can have?
And if that is the case, what do you propose to do about it, now that the code is accessible? Is there a way out of this ?
***Credits***
Mesh, textures, Illums, Break mod, hp's and dp's by Anduril
(...)
****comments****
IF YOU WISH TO REPOST, RE-TEXTURE OR REWORK THE MESH
I would ask you seek prior approval BEFORE RELEASING ANY SUCH
RE-MODELS.
On 4/15/2011 5:56 AM:
> Sure, go ahead and use them. Thanks for asking!
>
> Take care
> Anduril
D77 you bastage!!!!!
;DP.S. some of those Conjectoral klink carriers too! :spam:
Firesoul. I would poke WickedZombie45 - he has a full on fleet of Antromedans on his site.
I have heard of the D77. There is no way that design would ever be included in BAM. Steve must consider the ship a really bad joke is all I can say.
Ah, that just means you can download the SSD :-P
Crimmy would just start flying Beastriders.
Federation WFF Terran Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WNF Andorian Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WRF Rigellian Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WRL Rigellian Warp-Refitted Light Cruiser
Federation WSR Warp-Refitted Survey Cruiser
Crim stick to your D5W.
What are these ships like?Code: [Select]Federation WFF Terran Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WNF Andorian Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WRF Rigellian Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WRL Rigellian Warp-Refitted Light Cruiser
Federation WSR Warp-Refitted Survey Cruiser
Not worth having in OP+: can't do limited range tractors, transporters, etc. There's a question of shiplist space as well.
Not worth having in OP+: can't do limited range tractors, transporters, etc. There's a question of shiplist space as well.
For ship list space, I got nothin.
[NERD MODE]
For your tractors & transporters comment, set these ship's first year avail. date to SFC equivalent of Y140, or same as F-CL; see YG7.65 and YG8.14; see also YR2.2 (F-WCL) for precedence.
However, please note that I'm NOT saying "Firesoul please add these" :knuppel2: but I am saying "You could if you wanted to due to SFC's early years being a bit later than SFB's early years". :smitten:
Also, see also Module R8: section R1.0 paragraph 5, "National Guard Ships"; R2.116, R2.117, R2.118, R2.119 and R2.120.
[/NERD MODE]
Not worth having in OP+: can't do limited range tractors, transporters, etc. There's a question of shiplist space as well.What does it actually mean though?Crim stick to your D5W.
What are these ships like?Code: [Select]Federation WFF Terran Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WNF Andorian Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WRF Rigellian Warp-Refitted Frigate
Federation WRL Rigellian Warp-Refitted Light Cruiser
Federation WSR Warp-Refitted Survey Cruiser
Just admiring the changes...some big...some small.....like the wildfire CL BR2..it went from 120 to 160? that's a big jump, played a game last night everyone took the BR2, I could not ...(out of BVP range....had my arse handed to me..)
That's great.....
Like I said, I was admiring the changes so far.....no complaint's yet, no faults yet... :smitten:
Great!
with your permission may I pass this around GR?
Id like to get the rehardpointed planet meshes thrown in too to correct the oldest and laziest bug out there if we can do that, FS. And glad to see u messing with SFC.
Thanks Age!
Although I realize looking at it here that I should have blurred the ships in the background a bit for perception accuracy..but FS doesn't want me to mess with it anymore. *chuckles*
Thanks Age!
Although I realize looking at it here that I should have blurred the ships in the background a bit for perception accuracy..but FS doesn't want me to mess with it anymore. *chuckles*
Wow...you did those....(read..I'm floored!)...
I had asked FoaS a few months back if he could do a sig for me, but he has been super busy....
Would you have time to do one? If yes just tell me what you want / need to get started...
Paul.
may I say....IMHO...don't do that.......if you, myself and most other players want to see this thru......make it go thru...if you make a mod to flip back and forth the BAK files...your still going to have this problem of players not wanting to switch...
I know a lot of players that won't play 4.1, simply because it is 4.1....I myself will not play 4.0 just because you put this effort into 4.1, I believe we should play 4.1, I'm not going to bounce back to 4.0 because they are being stubborn about change...
I strongly urge you to stand your ground and fight for what you have worked so hard on to achieve, Firesoul you really have done a fantastic job..and I truly appreciate it..
Well that is your decision, but personally it is a poor excuse....I've been modding the crap out of EAW, then I just copied and pasted my mods to your OP files... I completely re-did the textures folders, shuttles folders, monsters folders and a few others...and I'm the noob at this...they could do it way easier/faster than what it took me...(if they wanted too, that is.)
FYI: I am working on a Release Candidate 2.This would be hard if using the SFC OP Shiplist Chooser as you have to uninstall OP+4.0 to install 4.1 as it will identify it as the same.It is in Pestalence's E Pack 5.1.I use it to swap mods to stock 2552 and OP+4.1.
- There's been enough resistance from people. They want this to co-exist with OP+ 4.0. ... Can do.
- I may include a OP+ 4.0/OP+ 4.1 shiplist swapper.
- Something silly from the OP+ 4.0 corrections thread: a missing PF Variant. A .. Lyran phaser PF Leader
- Last chance for Dizzy's planet models.
ok, so how do we fix the planets? noone wants to rehardpoint them?
I know a lot of players that won't play 4.1, simply because it is 4.1....I myself will not play 4.0 just because you put this effort into 4.1, I believe we should play 4.1, I'm not going to bounce back to 4.0 because they are being stubborn about change...
I know a lot of players that won't play 4.1, simply because it is 4.1....I myself will not play 4.0 just because you put this effort into 4.1, I believe we should play 4.1, I'm not going to bounce back to 4.0 because they are being stubborn about change...
Its not so much that as it is the fact that noone wants to have 4.1 loaded when everyone else is using 4.0. So of course noone uses 4.1, and as a result everyone still uses 4.0. Typical catch 22.
Just realized the LODs are jacked up w/ those files... you have to zoom in way to far to get the high poly model... arg... i'm guessing that LOD transition numbers don't exactly corrispond to in game distance do it... I hate LODs
Edit: Fixed... i think. New files in previous post
I know a lot of players that won't play 4.1, simply because it is 4.1....I myself will not play 4.0 just because you put this effort into 4.1, I believe we should play 4.1, I'm not going to bounce back to 4.0 because they are being stubborn about change...
Its not so much that as it is the fact that noone wants to have 4.1 loaded when everyone else is using 4.0. So of course noone uses 4.1, and as a result everyone still uses 4.0. Typical catch 22.
Well I'm late to the argument on this. But I know as everyone else does that fractured community assets split the playerbase and lead to ill will. That cannot be argued against. FS deciding to offer to please everyone is sticky business and I'm glad I'm not in his shoes because he is in a tight spot, but everyone knows what I'd have done. Forward progress! Out with the old in with the new. You don't like it piss off! You could always backup those model folders and reload them into 4.1, hehe. No better way to change than to kill everything you are used to.
Ok, attached are the stock planets with new hardpoints that follow Dizzy's layout (not mps). please note there are no texture files in here as the only thing changed are the .mod files. I placed the hps slightly off the planets surface so they shouldn't shoot the planet when the fire. I haven't test them in game though.
Edit: Fixed, I think...
Thanks Age!
Although I realize looking at it here that I should have blurred the ships in the background a bit for perception accuracy..but FS doesn't want me to mess with it anymore. *chuckles*
Wow...you did those....(read..I'm floored!)...
I had asked FoaS a few months back if he could do a sig for me, but he has been super busy....
Would you have time to do one? If yes just tell me what you want / need to get started...
Paul.
Thanks Age!
Although I realize looking at it here that I should have blurred the ships in the background a bit for perception accuracy..but FS doesn't want me to mess with it anymore. *chuckles*
Wow...you did those....(read..I'm floored!)...
I had asked FoaS a few months back if he could do a sig for me, but he has been super busy....
Would you have time to do one? If yes just tell me what you want / need to get started...
Paul.
If FoaS doesn't mind me taking a stab at it, I can give it a go at least.
FS' banner is pretty much a copy/paste job, but I don't mind exploring my photoshop. It's fun!
I would basically need to know what size, colours, theme, font if you have it, any ships...stuff like that.
Oh! And so as not to derail this thread...where should I post the product for you afterwards (ie. Community Art and Renderings or dnet signatures)?
I know a lot of players that won't play 4.1, simply because it is 4.1....I myself will not play 4.0 just because you put this effort into 4.1, I believe we should play 4.1, I'm not going to bounce back to 4.0 because they are being stubborn about change...
Its not so much that as it is the fact that noone wants to have 4.1 loaded when everyone else is using 4.0. So of course noone uses 4.1, and as a result everyone still uses 4.0. Typical catch 22.
Well I'm late to the argument on this. But I know as everyone else does that fractured community assets split the playerbase and lead to ill will. That cannot be argued against. FS deciding to offer to please everyone is sticky business and I'm glad I'm not in his shoes because he is in a tight spot, but everyone knows what I'd have done. Forward progress! Out with the old in with the new. You don't like it piss off! You could always backup those model folders and reload them into 4.1, hehe. No better way to change than to kill everything you are used to.
OP+ 4.1 RC2:
- does not need 4.1 to be uninstalled
- comes with a tool to flip the installation back and forth, quickly, between 4.0 and 4.1
.. in other words, I eliminated the excuse.
.. as for pissing someone off, I won't be able to help with that. it WILL happen. I will however TRY to listen at least once and see it their way. .. I'll make my own decision afterwards if I want to say no to it, or not.
Thank you Tus. I'll take a look at these soon. I'm taking a short step back from SFC: it's actually gotten to me emotionally this weekend, while talking to some players.
My current Todo list, as it is:
- review of my pirates. Some of my pirates suck ass: powercurves shot.
- I was actually warned on this. oops.
- review and inclusion of the planets models.
WHICH hardpoint map did you use? The colored version or the one I found in Modelsplease's planet hardpoint DL test? Note that BOTH hardpoint maps are mine. The grayscale version is simply older and had been lost to me.
About planet maps, the OP planet meshes that have been revised with new hardpoints should be the only ones used from now on for planets. Custom texture alternatives with lighting tricks would be a great add on. The lod's and hardpoints need to be left intact if the mesh is altered.
hey Dizzy
you and Diehard should look me up
our teamspeak3 info is located at [url=http://www.cugs.org]www.cugs.org[/url] ([url]http://www.cugs.org[/url])
we still are around playing 4.0 and are considering trying 4.1 when Firesoul get it all finished
nice seeing you alive my old friend
DIFJosh CUGS
Pirates weren't playable in EAW? Any ship with 6 drones or more should have 12 drone control.
trying it but it still has alot of problems ie: powercurve on pirates, probes on pirate races they have none, drone control on ships such as Fed DNM ( 7 drone racks yet can only control 6 drones doesn't make sense) these are just a few to name. also how about the continuing refits minus X technology on ship list .
there is more but this is a start hope FS is feeling better
DIFJoshCUGS
your friendly SFC Community Angel 8)
WOW......
I just got banned for life from Cugs......for what? I don't know no-one will tell me....for stating an opinion online, for the privet PM I sent to FS......Voidwar was my teammate, he asked what version I was playing, I told him 4.1..he left the TS3 room joined Whippet in another room and in 20 seconds I was banned..hehehe.....
Got news for you fellas......I've lived my whole life without Cugs, ban me I don't care...make rooms like "Firetrolls new bitchen shizz"
I don't care! there are so many VoiP out there...it's a joke....your a joke.
trying it but it still has alot of problems ie: powercurve on pirates, probes on pirate races they have none, drone control on ships such as Fed DNM ( 7 drone racks yet can only control 6 drones doesn't make sense) these are just a few to name. also how about the continuing refits minus X technology on ship list .
there is more but this is a start hope FS is feeling better
DIFJoshCUGS
your friendly SFC Community Angel 8)
- powercurve on pirates is more a question of changing weapon loadouts. I acknowledge I made poor choices for some loadouts. This needs a lenghty review.
- pirates not having probes: not a bug, unless you want to sacrifice a weapon for one.
- Fed DNM with drone control of 6: there's no mention of double-drone control on the SSD. Nor are there any erratas for R2.124 F-DNM. The bug's in the ship design, not the data entry.
Very nice work Firesoul, and interesting 16 pages of readings too, I finally have some time on my hands this weekend so I'll explore the Release Candidate this weekend and let you know if I see anything in my day-long reuniting with OP lol.
So... I've been giving it some thought:
The K-C8x and the K-WD5x: I can remove the extra drones, and just leave them as ADD on the refitted ship. The partial X refit does not upgrade the drone control rating. The end result would be a cheaper ship.
The K-C10 and F-DNM: Both ships have a DC of 6.
Based on Grognar's somewhat inaccurate but useful BPV page, I could increase the BPV by 3 and make it DC of 12. I think I will do that.
So... I've been giving it some thought:
The K-C8x and the K-WD5x: I can remove the extra drones, and just leave them as ADD on the refitted ship. The partial X refit does not upgrade the drone control rating. The end result would be a cheaper ship.
The K-C10 and F-DNM: Both ships have a DC of 6.
Based on Grognar's somewhat inaccurate but useful BPV page, I could increase the BPV by 3 and make it DC of 12. I think I will do that.
This trouble is systemic, and if fixed, the fix probably needs to be applied systemically to the whole shiplist.
All ships, need to have control channels at least equal to their racks, plus six, to control a scatter.
The Fed DNM is probably just the most glaring example, but it is only one example of the systemic problem.
The added test that generated that output was systematic.
The added test that generated that output was systematic.
Was that list complete ? If that is all the ships that have more racks than channels, I understand.
I think channels must equal racks plus six for scatter use.
I say this in the interest of a fun workable COMPUTER game, and with no regard for whether SFB likes it or not.
This aint a board game. I aint rollin dice. We are playing a real time computer game, and having ships, able to make scatters, that will invariably waste drones is silly and makes no sense.
The proper number of channels, to improve our computer game, is racks plus six, NO MATTER WHAT SFB SAYS on the topic.
We are playing a real time computer game, and having ships, able to make scatters, that will invariably waste drones is silly and makes no sense.
I completely disagree. OP+ will remain as it is.
I completely disagree. OP+ will remain as it is.
As it is ? I thought it was a beta being playtested right now.
Your "disagreement" doesn't have much in the way of specific detail, does it ?
If you don't want to fix things, make improvements, or take input from players, then what is this all about ?
SFC does not (yet) allow for transfer of drone control between ships. Having single drone control on a dreadnought is far less of an issue in SFB, since a dreadnought always has other ships with it that can take up drone control as needed.
If SFB intended for dreadnoughts to fight duels as they do in SFC pickup games, I have no doubt whatsoever those ships would all have double drone control.
Ok. Well. Let's take that over then, since you're doing a good job of being a f*ing troll. >:(
At the risk at estranging myself from the player community, I will not be applying your suggested change. It's not that I don't care, it's that I actually enjoy people having to play within the limits of their ships.
It's called tactics.
Gentlemen. Keep it civil please.
So for you to come in and claim changes based on a personal opinion and state that you do not care for what SFB has to say on the topic indicates a disrespect for the basis of this mod.
These modifications and limits are not just pulled out of thin air. They are documented. There are limitations in the game itself that were explained to you and you were told why your suggestion would not work. It was already rejected.
You came back with an inflamed response that called into question the merits of everything the mod is built on. You really think you didn't deserve being called a troll? (I will grant that the expletive might have been excessive)
You asked if your skills were questioned, I would turn that around on you.
Is this change so daunting
What did SFB say about the DNM ? 6 or 7 ? If sfb said 6, then why is firesoul saying he plans to bump it ?
Vague hogwash. 12 control channels on a DNH WILL work. Don't choose to leave something broken, and then try to get me to believe it was unfixable.
Claiming "this is the way it was in sfb" is not some trump card that ends all discussion.
C10K and DNM: I made acknowledged that their SFB design was .. indeed.. stupid. These will be the only 2 ships (and their refits) that will get more drone control for +3 BPV. I am taking full responsibility for this exception and in no way should be applied to other ships.
It's not broken. I don't even need to explain further, but I am typing this extra text because you like explanations in detail.
VoidWar, the answer is 'no'.
Void, Firesoul stated many years ago that the OP+ project was specifically designed and intended to place into the shiplist as many SFB ships as could be placed using the limitations and parameters of SFB as a guide. He is not interested in "fixing" anything
C10K and DNM: I made acknowledged that their SFB design was .. indeed.. stupid. These will be the only 2 ships (and their refits) that will get more drone control for +3 BPV. I am taking full responsibility for this exception and in no way should be applied to other ships.
This reveals it all.
SFB might be wrong, but only in the places firesoul says, and if lowly Voidwar says sfb is wrong, sfb resumes its role as an unassailable trump card.
Inconsistancy.
Void, Firesoul stated many years ago that the OP+ project was specifically designed and intended to place into the shiplist as many SFB ships as could be placed using the limitations and parameters of SFB as a guide. He is not interested in "fixing" anything
What he just stated about the FED DNM, completely undoes your argument.
Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC. Its completely different than what you're asking for.
Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC. Its completely different than what you're asking for.
Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC. Its completely different than what you're asking for.
No, its not. SFB had 6 channels for 7 racks, and firesoul just admitted that was stupid, and he's going to change it.
So, if firesoul thinks its stupid, that puts it up for grabs, but if someone else thinks its stupid, then they have disagreed with SFB and are instantly wrong.
Inconsistancy, just like I said.
All ships, need to have control channels at least equal to their racks, plus six, to control a scatter.
If I understand FS right, he will give certain ships with 7+ Racks 7 DC etc....
If I understand FS right, he will give certain ships with 7+ Racks 7 DC etc....
Do you think this makes a difference ?
If he changes one thing, this means changes are allowed, and this whole "SFB is always right" crap, is out the window.
If SFB is always right, why wasn't it right about the DNM ?
Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC. Its completely different than what you're asking for.
No, its not. SFB had 6 channels for 7 racks, and firesoul just admitted that was stupid, and he's going to change it.
So, if firesoul thinks its stupid, that puts it up for grabs, but if someone else thinks its stupid, then they have disagreed with SFB and are instantly wrong.
Inconsistancy, just like I said.
No, you are asking for double drone control for all ships with 6 or less Racks:All ships, need to have control channels at least equal to their racks, plus six, to control a scatter.
If I understand FS right, he will give certain ships with 7+ Racks 7 DC etc....
Because the DNM relies on the feature of SFB that allows it to transfer drones to its escort's control channels. A feature that SFC can't replicate.
Because the DNM relies on the feature of SFB that allows it to transfer drones to its escort's control channels. A feature that SFC can't replicate.
You know what SFC can do ? Up the drone control channels and solve the problem.
Now that you realize that "solved", is better than "sfb", stop being stubborn and solve the rest.
I gave the following ships 12 DC, double drone control. Note: I increased the BPV by 3. This is in an unreleased shiplist revision. It was my choice to do so, after having written a 'systematic' check to detect all issues.
# ship F-DNM: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 7 )
# ship F-DNMx: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 7 )
# ship K-C10K: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 8 )
# ship K-C10x: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 9 )
It's not like this is the first time I've taken steps to resolve an annoyance. The Planets' weapons loadouts is a good example. I can even provide multiple other instances of my ... inconsistency.
wait! that means I'm consistent!
Now, please please drop the matter of the drone control!
-- FS
It's a problem (DC)if you want other people to play your version and for this to be the new standard. It's not a problem if this is just for yourself. At the end of the day, Corbo's answer will do. He and any server admin can change it if and when we get back to a position of having campaigns again.
It's a problem (DC)if you want other people to play your version and for this to be the new standard. It's not a problem if this is just for yourself. At the end of the day, Corbo's answer will do. He and any server admin can change it if and when we get back to a position of having campaigns again.
Ok. Let's see.
*thinks*
No. I actually like it the way it is. I *want* people to be unable to launch drones when their fire control limits are reached.
This is not a problem.
*pokes head in thread* have I heard yelling going on here?
Voidwar, your argument doesnt take into account ships with 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 racks PLUS a scatter. We'd need DC of anywhere from 7 to 11 in your case.
I dont follow your logic and I dont see any sense in your argument.
Voidwar, your argument doesnt take into account ships with 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 racks PLUS a scatter. We'd need DC of anywhere from 7 to 11 in your case.
What makes you think that what I have said, "channels should equal racks plus six", does not fit what you have said there?
Yes , I know, yes they all need them.
I dont follow your logic and I dont see any sense in your argument.
I find that hard to believe.
Ships being able to launch and control all of their drones, plus control a scatterpack's worth of drones ( thats 6 dizzy :P ), allows all the ship's systems to function at once, and can still be defeated, by one well timed T-bomb. Its so obvious and apparent, that I don't see how you can claim not to follow it.
Well, lol, that wont ever happen... lmao.
I follow it. I'm just not following you. ;)
Void, if you put half as much effort into doing it yourself
Void, if you put half as much effort into doing it yourself
Yawn.
I provided feedback. I never said I was going to do it myself.
If the penalty for providing feedback, is to be challenged to make my own, why should anyone participate in testing or provide feedback ?
As far as effort goes, it took a lot of effort to make firesoul admit the DNM was "stupid", and to shatter that "SFB is always right" garbage, but now that it is shattered, it seems my work has just begun. Now that he himself has shown that SFB can be departed from, the dike has finally cracked, and now we can get some real progress.
Hmmm, a superiority complex mixed with total ignorance, lack of respect for others
efforts and no desire to take on the task for yourself. People are right to ignore you and I will now join them. Have fun!
Beating it to death
Discussion is fine. Flame-baiting is not.
Ok. Well. Let's take that over then, since you're doing a good job of being a f*ing troll. >:(
At the risk at estranging myself from the player community, I will not be applying your suggested change. It's not that I don't care, it's that I actually enjoy people having to play within the limits of their ships.
It's called tactics.
The question remains, do YOU question your skills as a pilot?
Is this change so daunting to you that you cannot overcome the challenge it poses to you? Can you not master this ship in its pure design and make it your bitch?
I dont follow your logic and I dont see any sense in your argument.
Hmmm, a superiority complex mixed with total ignorance, lack of respect for others efforts and no desire to take on the task for yourself. People are right to ignore you and I will now join them. Have fun!
Your god complex is showing.
stop being stubborn.
Hmmm, a superiority complex mixed with total ignorance, lack of respect for others
This sounds a lot like firesoul.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
. I'm gonna start calling you Captain Obvious, LS.It's obvious to me we need someone to develop a shiplist based on computer gameplay, not SFB. No one gives a crap anymore (that still actually plays this game with others online) if the SDS says 99% of the pirates don't have a probe. For in-game play thats pretty dumb. We could also use the deletion of about 40% of the ships on the list for online play. I have to scroll for 3 minutes past useless crap just to find my C7.
. I'm gonna start calling you Captain Obvious, LS.It's obvious to me we need someone to develop a shiplist based on computer gameplay, not SFB. No one gives a crap anymore (that still actually plays this game with others online) if the SDS says 99% of the pirates don't have a probe. For in-game play thats pretty dumb. We could also use the deletion of about 40% of the ships on the list for online play. I have to scroll for 3 minutes past useless crap just to find my C7.
oh, yeah... well, be nice if there was a tag line description for ships that could be implemented into the interface such that certain type ships would be able to be filtered out. Kindalike how khoromags fleeat attack whatnot script is like. Whats name of that one?
oh, yeah... well, be nice if there was a tag line description for ships that could be implemented into the interface such that certain type ships would be able to be filtered out. Kindalike how khoromags fleeat attack whatnot script is like. Whats name of that one?
you can use that data to filter out the commando ships in seconds., remove those scout ships in no time, and toss out those pesky tugs too. It's real damn easy now. I made sure that data's accurate.
oh, yeah... well, be nice if there was a tag line description for ships that could be implemented into the interface such that certain type ships would be able to be filtered out. Kindalike how khoromags fleeat attack whatnot script is like. Whats name of that one?
you can use that data to filter out the commando ships in seconds., remove those scout ships in no time, and toss out those pesky tugs too. It's real damn easy now. I made sure that data's accurate.
Well I hope we can do up a script with ED or someone that can take advantage of that feature. Nice feature, FS! That might actually make using the STOCK list in a slavegirls mod possible... If every script had a call for the types of ships in mission... then wow. We could have monitors and tugs only for a shipyard defense script... commando onlly type ships for a capture mission... these type missions wernt ever possible on D2 because all those kinda ships were taken out of the list. Mission variety is one way to ease the monotony of doing missions on the D2... and maybe we can use this in the future.
if (gST.narrowed_sl.mIsEnhancedShiplist()) {
int32 fShiplistCount = 0;
ShipList aux_sl = gST.narrowed_sl;
tTeamInfo* freighterTeam = fMissionInfo->mGetTeamHandle( static_cast<eTeamID>( kFreighterTeam ) );
eRaceName freighterRace = freighterTeam->mGetRace();
std::list< eRace > raceList;
raceList.push_back(freighterRace);
fShiplistCount = aux_sl.Subset(raceList);
gST.mDebug_fprintf("subset for race (%d) filter completed. ships: %d\n", freighterRace, fShiplistCount);
// Strip out ships with SPECIAL
std::list< eClassTypes > classTypeList;
classTypeList.push_back(kClassSpecial);
fShiplistCount = aux_sl.Subset(classTypeList, false);
gST.mDebug_fprintf("subset for eClassTypes (no SPECIAL) completed. ships: %d\n", fShiplistCount);
fShiplistCount = aux_sl.Subset(auxClassTypeList, true);
std::list< eEnhancedClassTypes > auxClassTypeList_take2;
auxClassTypeList_take2.push_back(kEClassSmallAuxiliary);
auxClassTypeList_take2.push_back(kEClassLargeAuxiliary);
fShiplistCount = aux_sl.Subset(auxClassTypeList_take2, true);
gST.mDebug_fprintf("subset for auxiliary filter completed. ships: %d\n", fShiplistCount);
// aux classes: warship, carrier, PFT
std::list< eEnhancedRoles > auxRolesList;
auxRolesList.push_back(kWarShip);
auxRolesList.push_back(kCarrier);
auxRolesList.push_back(kPFTender);
fShiplistCount = aux_sl.Subset(auxRolesList, true);
gST.mDebug_fprintf("subset for auxiliary eEnhancedRoles completed. ships: %d\n", fShiplistCount);
}
// Andros are CustomRace1
std::list< eEnhancedRoles > androRolesList;
androRolesList.push_back(kRoleCustomRace1);
fShiplistCount = narrowed_sl.Subset(androRolesList, true);
mDebug_fprintf("subset for andro list completed. ships: %d\n", fShiplistCount);
Man that is exactly what Im talking about! Very cool stuff. An OCI shipyard could also break down ships according to the hull class making choosing a ship a breeze. Now that is the kinda of mission interface we need for a GSA 6 position start. The mission would allow the host to be able to toggle what ships his entire game lobby would be able to choose from.
The standard Free for all GSA script everyone uses could be the template and just add this filtering thingy and then maybe adjust the starting positions so everyone is 10k distance further away than stock. Always ben annoying how close you start in a game.
Wonder if ED could whip something like that up?
I wished I could as well as afford it.Man that is exactly what Im talking about! Very cool stuff. An OCI shipyard could also break down ships according to the hull class making choosing a ship a breeze. Now that is the kinda of mission interface we need for a GSA 6 position start. The mission would allow the host to be able to toggle what ships his entire game lobby would be able to choose from.
The standard Free for all GSA script everyone uses could be the template and just add this filtering thingy and then maybe adjust the starting positions so everyone is 10k distance further away than stock. Always ben annoying how close you start in a game.
Wonder if ED could whip something like that up?
Do you know C++, Dizzy? :)
You could learn it, maybe?
Are the new hard pointed planets going to be put out in the next release candidate or as an individual download?
I would just make patch for the planets istead of a complete installer.
It's a sweeping fix. What is involved is that the shiplist for all the planets with weapons are redone and then the models themselves will have to be rehardpointed. The hardpoints are currently located anywhere from 5 to 7 range above and below the equator on the physical planet model itself, which obviously causes point defense weapons not to fire because if a ship approaches the equator, the point defense weapons are too far away to fire.
Make note that any weapon that ignores a fire arc should not be used on a planet as firing through the planet mesh occurs and the resulting sound collision from that fire is quite annoying. Below you will see the planet fire arc where HW1 is the front of the ship. HW1 stands for heavy weapon hardpoint 1 and is the 1st heavy weapon column in the shiplist. PH11 stands for the 11th phaser hardpoint and corresponds to the 11th weapon column in the shiplist.
The Yellow arcs should be Ph3 hardpoints which should be present on ALL planets. The Blue are the Ph4's which should be standard on all armed planets. The Red should be heavy weapon hardpoints that should be on all armed planets. The Orange should be optional heavy weapon hardpoints. The rest shaded grey should be only used for homeworlds. Ph1's should not be used on planets as it would give the planet too many defensive phasers.
I do not remember testing to see if a planet can make use of defensive tractors vs drones. I think they do, and I would give all planets 6 and homeworlds 12.
I am fuzzy on the artifex program and do not remember specifically which planets are referred to as colony world, core world and homeworld. If there are other designations artifex uses that the scripts and the map match up, it would be easy to simply use the existing planets as a reference and arm them from the stock taldren template using the fixes I have made.
# defensive phasers only! 14, 17, 21, 24
my $all_planets_mounts = {
66 => { 'mount' => 14, 'arc' => 'RS' },
75 => { 'mount' => 17, 'arc' => 'RH' },
87 => { 'mount' => 21, 'arc' => 'LS' },
96 => { 'mount' => 24, 'arc' => 'FH' },
};
# 3, 4, 8, 9 -- 11, 15, 18, 22
my $armed_world_mounts = {
33 => { 'mount' => 3, 'arc' => 'FRR' },
36 => { 'mount' => 4, 'arc' => 'RRR' },
48 => { 'mount' => 8, 'arc' => 'LLR' },
51 => { 'mount' => 9, 'arc' => 'FLL' },
57 => { 'mount' => 11, 'arc' => 'FH' },
69 => { 'mount' => 15, 'arc' => 'RS' },
78 => { 'mount' => 18, 'arc' => 'RH' },
90 => { 'mount' => 22, 'arc' => 'LS' },
};
# 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23
my $home_world_mounts = {
27 => { 'mount' => 1, 'arc' => 'FA' },
30 => { 'mount' => 2, 'arc' => 'FAR' },
39 => { 'mount' => 5, 'arc' => 'RAR' },
42 => { 'mount' => 6, 'arc' => 'RA' },
45 => { 'mount' => 7, 'arc' => 'RAL' },
54 => { 'mount' => 10, 'arc' => 'FAL' },
60 => { 'mount' => 12, 'arc' => 'FAR' },
63 => { 'mount' => 13, 'arc' => 'RS' },
72 => { 'mount' => 16, 'arc' => 'RAR' },
81 => { 'mount' => 19, 'arc' => 'RAL' },
84 => { 'mount' => 20, 'arc' => 'LS' },
93 => { 'mount' => 23, 'arc' => 'FAL' },
};
It's a sweeping fix. What is involved is that the shiplist for all the planets with weapons are redone and then the models themselves will have to be rehardpointed. The hardpoints are currently located anywhere from 5 to 7 range above and below the equator on the physical planet model itself, which obviously causes point defense weapons not to fire because if a ship approaches the equator, the point defense weapons are too far away to fire.
Make note that any weapon that ignores a fire arc should not be used on a planet as firing through the planet mesh occurs and the resulting sound collision from that fire is quite annoying. Below you will see the planet fire arc where HW1 is the front of the ship. HW1 stands for heavy weapon hardpoint 1 and is the 1st heavy weapon column in the shiplist. PH11 stands for the 11th phaser hardpoint and corresponds to the 11th weapon column in the shiplist.
The Yellow arcs should be Ph3 hardpoints which should be present on ALL planets. The Blue are the Ph4's which should be standard on all armed planets. The Red should be heavy weapon hardpoints that should be on all armed planets. The Orange should be optional heavy weapon hardpoints. The rest shaded grey should be only used for homeworlds. Ph1's should not be used on planets as it would give the planet too many defensive phasers.
I do not remember testing to see if a planet can make use of defensive tractors vs drones. I think they do, and I would give all planets 6 and homeworlds 12.
I am fuzzy on the artifex program and do not remember specifically which planets are referred to as colony world, core world and homeworld. If there are other designations artifex uses that the scripts and the map match up, it would be easy to simply use the existing planets as a reference and arm them from the stock taldren template using the fixes I have made.
I have implemented this fully, and as-is.
.. why? Because SFB-style planets are impossible. We can only make a close approximation.
In SFB, planets are not armed. They have ground bases, and these are independant units. Firing at a ground base unit only affects that unit, and not the whole planet (unlike SFC). There's no sharing of power either between these ground units. (again, unlike SFC).
That leaves me with 2 alternatives: do nothing, or we do our own. .. and this rules are good enough as-is. It's detailed enough that I can programmatically detect problems if there any.
Note: I haven't changed any of the other systems, except for the tractors.
Note2: I haven't released an installer for this. I have more work to do before I am satisfied with some other stuff that needs to be redone. (ie: bad pirates powercurve)
-- FS
Code tidbit for the mount definitions:Code: [Select]# defensive phasers only! 14, 17, 21, 24
my $all_planets_mounts = {
66 => { 'mount' => 14, 'arc' => 'RS' },
75 => { 'mount' => 17, 'arc' => 'RH' },
87 => { 'mount' => 21, 'arc' => 'LS' },
96 => { 'mount' => 24, 'arc' => 'FH' },
};
# 3, 4, 8, 9 -- 11, 15, 18, 22
my $armed_world_mounts = {
33 => { 'mount' => 3, 'arc' => 'FRR' },
36 => { 'mount' => 4, 'arc' => 'RRR' },
48 => { 'mount' => 8, 'arc' => 'LLR' },
51 => { 'mount' => 9, 'arc' => 'FLL' },
57 => { 'mount' => 11, 'arc' => 'FH' },
69 => { 'mount' => 15, 'arc' => 'RS' },
78 => { 'mount' => 18, 'arc' => 'RH' },
90 => { 'mount' => 22, 'arc' => 'LS' },
};
# 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23
my $home_world_mounts = {
27 => { 'mount' => 1, 'arc' => 'FA' },
30 => { 'mount' => 2, 'arc' => 'FAR' },
39 => { 'mount' => 5, 'arc' => 'RAR' },
42 => { 'mount' => 6, 'arc' => 'RA' },
45 => { 'mount' => 7, 'arc' => 'RAL' },
54 => { 'mount' => 10, 'arc' => 'FAL' },
60 => { 'mount' => 12, 'arc' => 'FAR' },
63 => { 'mount' => 13, 'arc' => 'RS' },
72 => { 'mount' => 16, 'arc' => 'RAR' },
81 => { 'mount' => 19, 'arc' => 'RAL' },
84 => { 'mount' => 20, 'arc' => 'LS' },
93 => { 'mount' => 23, 'arc' => 'FAL' },
};
Ok, attached are the stock planets with new hardpoints that follow Dizzy's layout (not mps). please note there are no texture files in here as the only thing changed are the .mod files. I placed the hps slightly off the planets surface so they shouldn't shoot the planet when the fire. I haven't test them in game though.
Edit: Fixed, I think...
These ones have the lods set to change at 1800 and 5000 (should be the same as the stock ones now)
.... I hate lods
Some of the work you have done is mind boggling.
RC3's up.
[url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/OP_plusrefit/opplus_41_models_20110522221827.exe[/url] ([url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/OP_plusrefit/opplus_41_models_20110522221827.exe[/url])
New changes of note:
- Planet hardpoint changes: [url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=OP%2B_Contents_and_Changes#Planets_hardpoint_fixes[/url] ([url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=OP%2B_Contents_and_Changes#Planets_hardpoint_fixes[/url])
- Pirates get a power boost, similar to what Taldren did: [url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=OP%2B_Contents_and_Changes#Power_Boost.2C_.C3.A0_la_Taldren[/url] ([url]http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=OP%2B_Contents_and_Changes#Power_Boost.2C_.C3.A0_la_Taldren[/url])
Name="TESTING - rebuilt ED missions"
Description="Testing ED missions as a Lyran commander"
EarlyMapName="EarlyMap.mvm"
MidMapName="MiddleMap.mvm"
LateMapName="LateMap.mvm"
DifficultyLevel=2
Era=1
TriggerMission=""
TriggerPrestige=0
[Missions]
0="Met_NW16PlanetDefense.scr"
[Races]
0=3
didnt' see any issues w/ the model, hp naming convention or hardpoint placement. Might be a disrupter w/ a bad arc maybe?
Just a little note - Firesoul's shiplist will =-not=- be used for SFC EAW : Community Edition or SFC4.
This is due to licensing issues, nothing else.
Great work Firesoul!
Regards,
On a planetary assault I ran into Z-PL2 at range zero way before I hit the physical model if that make any sense. The planet had rings I think.
I have been wondering will this ever play on the Dyna again or just IP?
Just a little note - Firesoul's shiplist will =-not=- be used for SFC EAW : Community Edition or SFC4.
This is due to licensing issues, nothing else.
Great work Firesoul!
Regards,
Interesting. I wonder what's not compatible. *shrug*
It's not like I can't mod THAT too! :)
On a planetary assault I ran into Z-PL2 at range zero way before I hit the physical model if that make any sense. The planet had rings I think.
Yea, it makes sense. The rings are part of the model, and aren't fly-through.
Exception: there's a planet with rings where you can fly through the rings, but that's hardcoded in SFC's sourcecode, and not the model.
Just a little note - Firesoul's shiplist will =-not=- be used for SFC EAW : Community Edition or SFC4.
This is due to licensing issues, nothing else.
Great work Firesoul!
Regards,
Interesting. I wonder what's not compatible. *shrug*
It's not like I can't mod THAT too! :)
If I had to guess, since licensing was mentioned, unless the additional SFB material is licensed through ADB, they can't use it in their update(s) to SFC. What was already in the game is 'covered', any additional SFB ships are not.
What implications this may have for SFC4, I have no clue...
That being said, since you are doing a 'fan based' mod, and since people who care to will use your shiplist anyways, I don't see that there is a problem with having two or more choices r.e. the shiplist.
As for your planet mods, well I don't see any reason THOSE couldn't be used, seeing they aren't handled the same in SFB as they are in SFC.
I'm sure Frey will PM you or clarify what the issue is here shortly!
Keep up the good work Firesoul!
As this is a purely noprofit venture that puts it squarly in the fair use part of copy right law and should shield him from a red tape attack from lawyers ;D
Forgive me on not knowing the ins and outs of the shiplist (which is fantastic, by the way) -- but after applying the third release candidate for a (Gorn/Early Era) single-player game, I began to have the smallest monster 'ships' as allies in patrol missions.
I'd like to imagine that the Beast Raiders learned to harness the monsters, but I am not too sure that is the intent. :)
[PoliticalTension/StartingTensions/Gorn]
Federation=0
Klingon=900
Romulan=1000
Lyran=900
Hydran=100
Gorn=0
ISC=800
Mirak=200
Orion=200
OrionOrion=400
OrionKorgath=300
OrionPrime=1000
OrionTigerHeart=200
OrionBeastRaiders=100
OrionSyndicate=900
OrionWyldeFire=500
OrionCamboro=200
Monster=200
Thank you very much, Firesoul.
I am flying the Evil Dave 'vs. ISC' campaign missions, if that matters. But now that you clarified the situation, I wish to keep the Beast Raider relationship as is. :) Oddly enough, I have never once seen a monster used as an ally before.
I found another oddity in the third release candidate I am running (Single Player, Gorn, Early Era, Evil Dave) ... when left-clicking the Prime Trader ships (PT1 and PT3) in the shipyard, the ship outline is blank (though the weapon layouts do appear) and it classifies as a 'Battle Station'.
Much appreciation.
My argument is simply this: I've added exposure to ADB. I hope I helped them increase their sales, beyond my purchasing stuff from them myself. I really do not see how my work can be any problem: it's basically free advertisement and endorsement.
-- FS
As this is a purely noprofit venture that puts it squarly in the fair use part of copy right law and should shield him from a red tape attack from lawyers ;D
My argument is simply this: I've added exposure to ADB. I hope I helped them increase their sales, beyond my purchasing stuff from them myself. I really do not see how my work can be any problem: it's basically free advertisement and endorsement.
-- FS
My argument is simply this: I've added exposure to ADB. I hope I helped them increase their sales, beyond my purchasing stuff from them myself. I really do not see how my work can be any problem: it's basically free advertisement and endorsement.
-- FS
Your argument fails.
How have you increased their sales? Where is your proof? You have none, unfortunately, that I've seen. ADB seems to feel the same way.
Ask ADB. I already did.
Your just not making any money off this, which is why they haven't come after you. This isn't fantasy, and ADB is not in business for doing good things, which I've found out several years ago. They are still quite pissed at the entire SFC series, as they feel they didn't get their fair share of money from the licensing, and have expressed their position that if anything is added that is based upon current / past modules, they will ensure it's licensed , or removed.
The bottom line is it'd cost more money than it's worth right now to come after you, because they'd have to show certain things in a Civil Court, loss of use, copyright infrigements, etc... which you'd not be able to fight and would likely just cave in and remove everything.
That would change if we included it in our CE and SFC4. CE is not a worry as we've already decided what we're going to use in regards to the shiplist (stock Taldren, obviously), but SFC4 is something we're going to work on and doing so means trying to resolve the bad blood there and work it out so we can use new stuff, or the stuff that was already there but never finished and is based upon ADB stuff.
This is why coders usually don't run businesses ;) And please Firesoul, before your ego blows the back of your head off, take a couple moments to breath and think about what I'm saying. While you may wish your argument was enough, I'm confident you'll see the truth if you really want to and anything you may suddenly desire to do (read: react) in regards to ADB would likely simply make the matter worse for the future of SFC.
So please, simply continue your great work on your MOD, and I think the community knows we'll be using it as a standard for the length of the life of SFC, as it's already established itself. Leave the rest to the people who've dealt with it before, and have experience with it.
Regards,
So what did you finally do for XP refits? The only thing that I didn't think would be too cheezy won't be the XPR power refit can conversion of Phaser 2 to Phaser 1, everything else would be absurdly un-balanced.
Firesoul, the Andros! mission was a blast. Thank you very much for that.
Firesoul, the Andros! mission was a blast. Thank you very much for that.
eh?
Hey Firesoul, take your time on what you decide for your mod and SFC. I remember years ago that the whole deal on how they created SFC (legally) was weird and amazing back in the late 90's.
I think FA Frey XC is right just keeo doing what you are doing and you will be fine. Since ADB isn't activly pursuing new video games at this time they couldn't reasonably claim any damages which would make going after you not only not profiable but give a very public appearince of being mean spirited and that would hurt themselves and their sells. For them in this economic climate that would be very counter productive so baring a real run of insanity over there you should be safe right FA Frey XC?
Also, keep in mind that Frey and the boys have been selling digital copies of EAW (last I checked anyways), so they are definitely subject to the licensing terms which they've worked out - I'd imagine ADB is getting a little more cash from these sales, miniscule as it might be.
Then we look at SFC4 :D
Firesoul,I like some of your Ideas here as I am more of pure Star Trek fan not an ADB fan and give all Fed CAs 6 Transporters as that is what they have.
I hope ABD/Mr. Cole can appreciate that your mod is a labor of love and nothing more than an homage to a super complex game that you have a tremendous amount of respect for.
If ABD/Mr. Cole do not appreciate your work, I say move it to the TMP setting where they do not have rights from the current Star Trek Intellectual property owners. Then replace the Andromedans with TMP era Borg or TOS Kelvins, rename the ship classes (e.g. D5W to say Klingon Light War Cruiser variant 1) and then go with the canon races and weapon names. There are more than enough non-ABD ships out there to make something totally different should it become necessary.
SFC will never be SFB for the PC.
There are too many limitations in the exisiting SFC games to allow for a total 100% conversion any way.
As much as I am NOT a huge fan of TOS/SFB Firesoul, I have been willing to play your mod without torpedo armed and cloaking Klingon warships.
On the otherhand, if you decide to depart the SFB ruleset, the TMP setting offers a multitude of options as well, including using Trek canon, torpedo armed and cloaking Klingon warships...
Best wishes, respect and honor to you for your continued work on this amazing project.
Qapla'
KF
Fair Use Notice
This site and game modification may contain copyrighted materials. The materials available on this site with regards to StarFleet Command and StarFleet Battles are considered Transformative works, and are publicly available, are non-commercial in nature and with no profit to ourselves.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
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 Amarillo 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.
For more information, see:
[url]http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html[/url])
[url]http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Fair_Use#Transformativeness[/url] ([url]http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Fair_Use#Transformativeness[/url])