Topic: There *IS* going to be another OP patch.

[FireSoul]

In the testers' forums..
.. awww.. can't get to it? .. I'm sooo sorry. Really I am.

[Toasty0]

Quote:

Quote:
How about making all the ship's displays universal so they can be used with any race, like the xmmer, xsmer, etc... They already work just about everywhere in the game. That way the WYN could have their pirate ships, for example, and you'd be able to see the display in the "shipyard".    

That's in sprites.q3, I think. No can do.  
Sorry. :-/

OoooOOOOoooooOOOo. The most holy of holy, sprites.q3.

Only the annointed ones touch the holy grail.

Best,
Jerry  

[Toasty0]

FWIW all,

Though I can't say which, some of your "requests" are being tested. I know of one that has passed muster. Sorry to tease like this, but I don't want you to think that you're not being heard. It's just that the feature/fix plate is now full.

And I am thoroughly convinced that you will be pleasently surprised by this patch.

Best,
Jerry  

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

Quote:
My request, FireSoul, then would be can we have the accessor methods in the OP API working for all types of loadouts including shuttles, fighters, drones and PF's. By accessors, I mean the 'gets' and 'sets'.
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.  

I already asked.

.. basically mSetFighters works for both fighters and PFs, but there's no mGetFighters.
mGetDrones works well, but mSetDrones doesn't.
I think there is a mSetShuttles, but no mGetShuttles.


If all 6 of the above would work, the scripters would rock.  

Sounds good, looking forward to it. Thanks FireSoul.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
My request, FireSoul, then would be can we have the accessor methods in the OP API working for all types of loadouts including shuttles, fighters, drones and PF's. By accessors, I mean the 'gets' and 'sets'.
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.  

I already asked.

.. basically mSetFighters works for both fighters and PFs, but there's no mGetFighters.
mGetDrones works well, but mSetDrones doesn't.
I think there is a mSetShuttles, but no mGetShuttles.


If all 6 of the above would work, the scripters would rock.  

Sounds good, looking forward to it. Thanks FireSoul.  

Remember, that was just a request. .. I strongly suspect it will NOT be done, but at least I asked.
-- Luc

[Jwest]

Quote:

Quote:
A much more extreme change would be to add empty but configurable (playable) race slots or moving the pirates to the empire map. These would also have side-effects that give modders more options.

*DING*

I'd love to see this.  A .gf setting that determines whether a race is on the Pirate Map or Cartel Map.  The next logical step from here would be a .gf setting that allows server admins to choose what color or color pattern (from a .gif perhaps) a race uses on the map.

This would allow admins to use OP to have a server with 15 races and still have a single pirate cartel on the cartel map - if that is what they want to do.  

This is a really great idea, if it can be incorporated. While I would like more than 1 pirate group for variety, three or four would be plenty, and the ability to add new empires on the main map more than makes up for it.  

[kosh2000]

Quote:
No. Instead the cartel layer should stay, and be fixed.

I really don't know why people want to remove the cartel layer. Seriously. Just fix it.
Besides, what is "Orion Pirates" without pirates? No, it's the product that was sold and it should just be fixed.

well i and others that have run servers on op since day one said the cartels should be on the same map as the empires  there may not be room on the stock maps but you can make the maps up 135x140  16,000 hexs wich will run fine with large numbers on a server with out the data base growing  big at all .

[jdmckinney]

Has anyone asked Dave about adding more hardpoints to UIs, or the ability to add hardpoints to them in a mod, so a number of ships don't have to use incorrect arcs and cram multiple weapons into fewer hardpoints?

The Klingons seem most affected by this, but they aren't the only ships that have to approximate arc and hardpoint combinations due to the limits on certain UIs.

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
Has anyone asked Dave about adding more hardpoints to UIs, or the ability to add hardpoints to them in a mod, so a number of ships don't have to use incorrect arcs and cram multiple weapons into fewer hardpoints?

The Klingons seem most affected by this, but they aren't the only ships that have to approximate arc and hardpoint combinations due to the limits on certain UIs.  

Probably in the holy sprites file.

[jdmckinney]

Yes, it probably is one of those things we will never have access to change. SFC3's moddable UIs show it's possible, though.

Here are some sample problems with ships having too few hardpoints, excerpted from a readme I keep for my shiplist work (ongoing):

* K-B10 (and variants, including B11):  the SFC UI does not have enough phaser hardpoints, nor are there the appropriate arcs available even if there were sufficient hardpoints. Therefore, I have followed Taldren's example in assigning the phaser type placement and arcs. Instead of 7 Ph1s, 8 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s, the B10 has 9 Ph1s, 6 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s. I've adjusted the phaser arcs on the B11K, but they are still inaccurate due to the restrictions of hardpoints and arc availability.

* Z-BB: Because there are not enough heavy weapon hardpoints to give the ship 2 FAL and 2 FAR disruptors, I?ve increased the arc on one set of 4 disruptors from FA to FX. This provides extra overlap, but I?ve left the BPV alone since the ship loses some Ph3 and Ph1 arc coverage due to the broken LWX arc and lack of proper side and forward arc combinations. The rear Ph3s and side Ph1s are now LS/RS.

* K-FWE: It needs more phaser hardpoints (7 different arcs) than are available on the F5/destroyer UI. To get enough hardpoints, I used the D5/war cruiser UI, but retained the F5 ship model. As an alternative, the F5 UI could be used if the FHL and FHR Ph2s were combined into one hardpoint with an FX arc (not KFX), though this would give the phasers more coverage than they should have.

There are others. I just didn't take notes on all of them.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

* K-B10 (and variants, including B11):  the SFC UI does not have enough phaser hardpoints, nor are there the appropriate arcs available even if there were sufficient hardpoints. Therefore, I have followed Taldren's example in assigning the phaser type placement and arcs. Instead of 7 Ph1s, 8 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s, the B10 has 9 Ph1s, 6 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s. I've adjusted the phaser arcs on the B11K, but they are still inaccurate due to the restrictions of hardpoints and arc availability.

Try using the standard KDN UI instead of the KBB. It works beautifully, and has more mountpoints.


 

[jdmckinney]

Thanks, I'll try it.

Still, the general problem remains on an odd ship here and there. It could even be worse after the patch than before if there are new arcs available.

Like I said, the SFC3 system shows UI edits can be done if handled right. It's too bad we don't have that level of adaptability here, or even just more hardpoints across the board just in case they are needed.

[Holocat]

It may be futile to ask, yet I wish, I wish, oh I wish that the weapons tight setting on the fleet control panel would prevent the AI from launching fighters.

I wish.

Holocat.

[Cleaven]

<To be delivered in the hushed but excited voice of David Attenborough>

.... and if you listen very carefully you can hear the faint cries of a frustrated Hydran player. Sometimes they will come out into the open and you can see them trying to herd their fighters towards the enemy. And rarely, very rarely, you will see a full wing execute a perfect attack, all firing their fusions and hellbores at the target at the optimum range and returning to re-arm. Truly spectacular stuff, now over here we have a ......  

[jdmckinney]

Let me clarify: there are plenty of hardpoints. The trouble is, they are invisible unless included on the UIs. I suppose those UIs are untouchable, and will remain safely locked away where nobody can improve upon them or modify them. It's fairly bad form to use UIs from different ships than your model, simply because the UI is often the first clue a player has about what they might be facing.

Oh well.

[The_Infiltrator]

Quote:
<To be delivered in the hushed but excited voice of David Attenborough>

.... and if you listen very carefully you can hear the faint cries of a frustrated Hydran player. Sometimes they will come out into the open and you can see them trying to herd their fighters towards the enemy. And rarely, very rarely, you will see a full wing execute a perfect attack, all firing their fusions and hellbores at the target at the optimum range and returning to re-arm. Truly spectacular stuff, now over here we have a ......    

You are a sick, sick man.

A long time ago, in a SFC reality far far away, Peetie2 laid out how fighter control should be. Perhaps some day it will be that way.

[IndyShark]

Firesoul, any good news on the patch? This is the most interesting thread on the board right now!!!
 

[FireSoul]

.. well, the best good news I could give without ruining any surprise is that work hasn't stopped. I've actually foregone most playing that I would usually do to do testing instead. One could say that I have to play to test, but it DOES get very boring when there are specific things to test, over and over..

.. but yes, work continues. It's not stalled.
-- Luc

[IndyShark]

Cool, thanks for the update and the hard work. I am really looking forward to seeing the patch!

Oh, did I mention the Doomsday Device? Hehe!  

[EmeraldEdge]

Quote:
One could say that I have to play to test, but it DOES get very boring when there are specific things to test, over and over..

Preach on Brotha'!  I can't tell you how many days on end I've spent going in and out of hexes, loggin' in every possible detail every time.  Aaaagh!  Not fun, especially when you have nobody to share it with because you are pretty much the only one bothering to show up and test.  I feel for ya.