Topic: SFC:Orion Pirates Patch 2.5.4.10 (Thats Two.Five.Four.Ten) Now Available! (Read 12090 times)

David Ferrell · « **on:** July 17, 2003, 02:26:33 pm »

Details here:

http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16&Number=127408&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Thanks,

Dave

FireSoul · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:27:55 pm »

.. and we're live.

AdmiralFrey_XC · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:31:12 pm »

Wooot!!!

OP is back, and I'm loving it.

In recognition of this patch, XC has also reformatted all the OP mod packs, with a new installer.

You can get the Sound, texture and Ambient mod packs here:

XC Enhancements for OP

All files, including the patches, are on our high bandwidth server.

Great work, everyone, and big thanks to Dave and Taldren for making it really happen.

Regards,

Mog · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:31:57 pm »

Many, many thanks for the hard work you and the testers have put into this, David. I appreciate this so much. The neutral co-op fix alone is worth it for me.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:32:51 pm »

Thanks David, and all who tested it or gave bug feedback to the testers.

Nice work!

Sten · « **Reply #5 on:** July 17, 2003, 03:23:31 pm »

Thanks to everyone who worked on this.

Sten

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:02:20 pm »

Thanks a bunch for all the work. This patch is a wonder, just what OP has been waiting for.

Reptor7 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:03:31 pm »

Let loose the Dogs of War!

FireSoul · « **Reply #8 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:11:22 pm »

Thank you David. It's been good working with you again.. With all of you, in fact.

-- Luc

Sethan · « **Reply #9 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:59:46 pm »

Woohooo!

Thank you, gentlemen!

Corbomite · « **Reply #10 on:** July 17, 2003, 05:36:43 pm »

Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -

It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #11 on:** July 17, 2003, 05:41:53 pm »

Mr. Ferrell, could you repost your PayPal addy? I didn't write it down when it was posted in the other thread (which now looks to be gone).

Thanks in advance...

...and thanks for the patch, guys...it's quite cool.

Strafer · « **Reply #12 on:** July 17, 2003, 05:42:24 pm »

Plasma is included. It's got the time to fade out to reach the target. Afterwards it loses lockon.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #13 on:** July 17, 2003, 05:47:35 pm »

You can send thank you notes to me @ davidf@taldren.com

Thanks,

Dave

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #14 on:** July 17, 2003, 06:01:18 pm »

Okay, Dave!

Just sent you a quick note of thanks!

And here's another one!

Can't wait to try this out (looks like SFC3 will have to wait a tick).

-TF

FireSoul · « **Reply #15 on:** July 17, 2003, 06:01:43 pm »

Quote:

Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -

It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.

Auto-tracking does not mean auto-retain lockon..

IndyShark · « **Reply #16 on:** July 17, 2003, 07:18:02 pm »

Thanks to everyone who made this possible! At one point I thought this would never happen! Oh happy days!

<grin>

David Ferrell · « **Reply #18 on:** July 17, 2003, 07:49:16 pm »

Thanks everyone for your kind thoughts on the release of the OP
patch.

I am not asking you to send any special thank yous, that is up to you ( and
might get me into more trouble than it is worth <imagines Paramount looking
for their cut> ).

I really appreciate all the cool posts I have read here today, that makes
it all worth it. SFC has been a labor of love for me and getting the game
in to a really cool state has been satisfying. Working with a commited
group of testers has been very nice and their help has been priceless.

I'll sign off now before I start sobbing like a baby.

Dave

Walleye · « **Reply #20 on:** July 17, 2003, 08:58:46 pm »

Big thanks to Dave and all the testers.

I don't know where we would be without you.

<><

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #21 on:** July 17, 2003, 09:08:09 pm »

Scipio--

I could be wrong here, but I THINK Corbo was questioning not whether a plasma torp could HIT a cloaking vessel, but whether a plasma torp FIRED by a vessel which THEN subsequently turns on its cloak would lose its tracking.

I THINK in the patch as it stands that the plasma torp LOSES tracking if the firing vessel completes its cloak fade-in before the torp connects with the targetted vessel... but I haven't tried it.

IIRC, that method would be incorrect as compared to SFB [duck for cover!]. The plasma torp has its own lock-on mechanism and does not need the firing ship to maintain lock-on (which the firing ship would LOSE once it cloaked... Can't cloak and ping targets at the same time, can we

? ), so although the plasma ship CLOAKED and lost lock-on to the targetted ship, the plasma should keep on flying towards the target. That, at least, is how I recall it.

Now, lest this be misconstrued as berating of the patch...
...HECK NO!!!! I can't believe how much this patch made my day! I think this seeking weapon thing (I hesitate to even call it an 'issue') PALES in comparison to prepatch cloak. This will totally redefine how I use the cloaking device in SFC (which had been 'not at all'

)!

But Scipio, your post did make me wonder: is the ECM Yo-yo actually implimented in SFC? I thought it wasn't, but I'm not sure. (NOT NITPICKING! JUST AN ACADEMIC/TACTICAL SFC QUESTION!)

Thanks, again, DF and Testers!

-TF

FireSoul · « **Reply #22 on:** July 17, 2003, 09:34:10 pm »

why don't you go test it yourself?

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #23 on:** July 17, 2003, 09:51:26 pm »

FireSoul:

Just tested it the "firing plasma when cloaked... is lock-on to the targetted ship by the launched plasma lost after fade-out of the firing ship" question.

Three words: Colon, Right Parantheses.

aka

Great job, guys! And getting greater the more I play it!

-TF

NCC2012 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 17, 2003, 10:04:57 pm »

If I wasn't at work right now I'd download it immediately.

Thank you very much for the patch!

Rhaz · « **Reply #25 on:** July 17, 2003, 10:21:47 pm »

Awesome news. Thanks to all who are keeping OP alive!

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #26 on:** July 18, 2003, 01:53:09 am »

Hmm, cloak now really makes disruptors and hellbores ineffective. They do not do damage based on true range (as they should when using the cloak chart). They still use the effective range (R*2 + 5) for hit% and damage. ECM still apparently works to benefit a fully cloaked vessel (though it is unlikely to have the energy to overcome the enemy's ECCM, but it is possible).

So a typical R0 attack now does:

OL Dizzy (83% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 6 *
33% do 3
33% do 1

OL Hellore (72% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 19*
33% do 9
33% do 4

OL Photon (50% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 16*
33% do 8
33% do 4

* pre 2.5.4.10 this is 100%

...for comparison

SFB OL Dizzy (83% accuracy w/ UIM, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 10
33% do 5
33% do 2

SFB OL Hellbore (72% accuracy, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 30
33% do 15
33% do 7

SFB OL Photon (50% accuracy, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 16
33% do 8
33% do 4

Draw any conclusions you wish from that.

Phaser-1's are apparently less devastating at R0 as they ought to be:

EDIT: The following does not appear to be true

Initial Damage; Expected Cloak chart outcomes
16%: 5; 5, 2, 1
16%: 4; 4, 2, 1
16%: 4; 4, 2, 1
16%: 3; 3, 1, 0
16%: 3; 3, 1, 0
16%: 2; 2, 1, 0

All this means is that the average damage per Ph-1 is now just 1.83 (assuming no ECM shift!)
They used to do 3.5 damage. This is a huge change. Take 8 Ph-1's on a G-BCH drilling a cloaked R-NHK on a high speed overrun for example:

Pre-patch: 8*3.5 = 28, which puts a big dent in any shield
Now: 8*1.83 = 14.6, which isn't too bad

EDIT: I'm gathering data. Something isn't right with Phasers vs cloak. The damage is too high.

The immediate disappearance of all seeking weapons targeted on a cloaked ship is really generous. I think that missiles and plasma should still have a chance to lock on (though lower than before). There is now no drama in wondering if you'll shake them off before they hit. It's count to 5 mississippi...blip...all incoming warheads gone.

The SFC cloak is reportedly defensively better than the SFB version in this final patch. If Roms could use WTACs to remain manuverable then they could save some badly needed energy instead of moving at speed 10 to keep a good turn rate while under the massive drain from the cloaking device.

The future looks bright for the Romulan Empire and the Orions. (or maybe not)

Cleaven · « **Reply #27 on:** July 18, 2003, 02:20:51 am »

How does the proxy/cloak relationship work out?

The_Harv · « **Reply #28 on:** July 18, 2003, 04:49:17 am »

Thanks for the patch! It really shows your dedication.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #29 on:** July 18, 2003, 07:41:54 am »

I need to regather data but I'm pretty certain Proximity Photons use the effective range to determine hit% as they always have.

True range: Effective range (R*2 + 5): Hit%

8: 21: cannot be fired
9: 23: 67%
12: 29: 67%
13: 31: 33%
23: 51: 0% (?)
55: 115: 0% (?)

If they hit, they go through the cloak chart:

33% do 4
33% do 2
33% do 1

Up to now they'd do 4 every time.

I also noticed that Erratics don't lower your HET success by 33% as they do in EAW. This isn't a big deal but it is a bug.

MagnumMan · « **Reply #30 on:** July 18, 2003, 10:51:10 am »

I know the feeling, well, kind of.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #31 on:** July 18, 2003, 11:07:35 am »

There is a chance that seekers will maintain lock, using an approximation
of the SFB rules.

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #36 on:** July 18, 2003, 06:46:07 pm »

It's at least a theoretical chance. Looking at the numbers the firing ship
would have to be close and the cloaker's speed high.

Thanks,

Dave

Cleaven · « **Reply #37 on:** July 18, 2003, 07:05:46 pm »

I have been hit after the usual lock loss time, but I couldn't replicate it so I stopped trying. So I guess I wasn't seeing things after all.

MarianoDT · « **Reply #38 on:** July 18, 2003, 08:32:08 pm »

Thanks for the patch. !!!
I will reinstall OP this weekend. After months of playing SFC3, it will be a mayor change.....

Mariano

To all at Taldren....Live long and Prosper.!!!

RogueJedi_XC · « **Reply #39 on:** July 19, 2003, 08:24:16 pm »

Mariano, get ready to get your butt handed to you by the AI. Happened to me so often in the last two days I felt like a total newbie.

2.5.4.10 kicks ass, guys! Thanks!

FireSoul · « **Reply #40 on:** July 20, 2003, 01:32:51 am »

Admiral level means something now.

Max_iCOP · « **Reply #41 on:** July 23, 2003, 09:39:59 pm »

Advanced Era EaW campaigns are well cool.

A BC or a XFF?

Great stuff. I'm so bloody delighted that your keeping up the good work.
SFC is just F'ing brilliant !!!!!

scarecrow · « **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2003, 12:49:50 am »

I loaded the patch to my original CD version 2.5.0.0 and the program now bombs each time I select Single player -> campaign. Any suggestions? Or can I select old patches rather than this new one? I'm rumming Win98 on a P3-900MHz
...
Thanks for the great support... better than any other game out there...

scarecrow

Rage1 · « **Reply #44 on:** July 24, 2003, 01:40:09 am »

You could also try to run the game in Win95/98 or Win2000 mode. I did a clean install with 2500-25410 patch. After loading, it asked for my CD key and it locked my keyboard out. I set it on Win2000 and it works beautifully.

Ifrit · « **Reply #46 on:** July 24, 2003, 10:58:53 am »

I believe that the presence of any old SP saved campaigns in the folder will cause the CTD (regardless of whether you try to load them or start a new campaign). I had the same problem under XP until I deleted the contents of the folder.

Carrie · « **Reply #50 on:** July 24, 2003, 07:49:41 pm »

Yay for the patch!

*random ponder*

But if it went up that far, shouldn't it be 2.5.5.0, to keep the last number in the 1-9 range?

*nitpicks*

Thanks for patching!

Tulwar · « **Reply #51 on:** July 27, 2003, 10:55:37 pm »

I forgot to thank you for the new patch! Now I feel safe behind my cloak!

Godzookie · « **Reply #53 on:** July 29, 2003, 01:56:56 pm »

I run the patch, it goes through everything just fine (i.e. no errors), but when I load the game the title screen still says 2.5.3.8 and I get no servers listed on the Dynaverse.

Cleaven · « **Reply #54 on:** July 29, 2003, 04:53:50 pm »

No it is not patching correctly . You are doing something wrong.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #55 on:** July 29, 2003, 08:29:41 pm »

Which patch version are you running? are you running the 2538->25410? or the 2501-> 25410? This might not be your problem, but without any other info, it's my first guess.

Toasty0 · « **Reply #56 on:** July 29, 2003, 08:33:05 pm »

silly question, but are you s-u-r-e you are using the 25410 patch?

Best,
Jerry

FireSoul · « **Reply #57 on:** July 29, 2003, 10:26:35 pm »

If all else fails, reinstall and do a 2500->25410.

SPQR Renegade001 · « **Reply #58 on:** July 29, 2003, 10:48:39 pm »

To me, it sounds like there's 2 copies of the game installed. The patch is fixing one, and your playing the other.
Any chance of that?

David Ferrell · « **Reply #59 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:26:33 pm »

Details here:

http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16&Number=127408&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Thanks,

Dave

FireSoul · « **Reply #60 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:27:55 pm »

.. and we're live.

AdmiralFrey_XC · « **Reply #61 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:31:12 pm »

Wooot!!!

OP is back, and I'm loving it.

In recognition of this patch, XC has also reformatted all the OP mod packs, with a new installer.

You can get the Sound, texture and Ambient mod packs here:

XC Enhancements for OP

All files, including the patches, are on our high bandwidth server.

Great work, everyone, and big thanks to Dave and Taldren for making it really happen.

Regards,

Mog · « **Reply #62 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:31:57 pm »

Many, many thanks for the hard work you and the testers have put into this, David. I appreciate this so much. The neutral co-op fix alone is worth it for me.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #63 on:** July 17, 2003, 02:32:51 pm »

Thanks David, and all who tested it or gave bug feedback to the testers.

Nice work!

Sten · « **Reply #64 on:** July 17, 2003, 03:23:31 pm »

Thanks to everyone who worked on this.

Sten

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #65 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:02:20 pm »

Thanks a bunch for all the work. This patch is a wonder, just what OP has been waiting for.

Reptor7 · « **Reply #66 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:03:31 pm »

Let loose the Dogs of War!

FireSoul · « **Reply #67 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:11:22 pm »

Thank you David. It's been good working with you again.. With all of you, in fact.

-- Luc

Sethan · « **Reply #68 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:59:46 pm »

Woohooo!

Thank you, gentlemen!

Corbomite · « **Reply #69 on:** July 17, 2003, 05:36:43 pm »

Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -

It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #70 on:** July 17, 2003, 05:41:53 pm »

Mr. Ferrell, could you repost your PayPal addy? I didn't write it down when it was posted in the other thread (which now looks to be gone).

Thanks in advance...

...and thanks for the patch, guys...it's quite cool.

Strafer · « **Reply #71 on:** July 17, 2003, 05:42:24 pm »

Plasma is included. It's got the time to fade out to reach the target. Afterwards it loses lockon.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #72 on:** July 17, 2003, 05:47:35 pm »

You can send thank you notes to me @ davidf@taldren.com

Thanks,

Dave

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #73 on:** July 17, 2003, 06:01:18 pm »

Okay, Dave!

Just sent you a quick note of thanks!

And here's another one!

Can't wait to try this out (looks like SFC3 will have to wait a tick).

-TF

IndyShark · « **Reply #75 on:** July 17, 2003, 07:18:02 pm »

Thanks to everyone who made this possible! At one point I thought this would never happen! Oh happy days!

<grin>

David Ferrell · « **Reply #77 on:** July 17, 2003, 07:49:16 pm »

Thanks everyone for your kind thoughts on the release of the OP
patch.

I am not asking you to send any special thank yous, that is up to you ( and
might get me into more trouble than it is worth <imagines Paramount looking
for their cut> ).

I really appreciate all the cool posts I have read here today, that makes
it all worth it. SFC has been a labor of love for me and getting the game
in to a really cool state has been satisfying. Working with a commited
group of testers has been very nice and their help has been priceless.

I'll sign off now before I start sobbing like a baby.

Dave

Walleye · « **Reply #79 on:** July 17, 2003, 08:58:46 pm »

Big thanks to Dave and all the testers.

I don't know where we would be without you.

<><

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #80 on:** July 17, 2003, 09:08:09 pm »

Scipio--

I could be wrong here, but I THINK Corbo was questioning not whether a plasma torp could HIT a cloaking vessel, but whether a plasma torp FIRED by a vessel which THEN subsequently turns on its cloak would lose its tracking.

I THINK in the patch as it stands that the plasma torp LOSES tracking if the firing vessel completes its cloak fade-in before the torp connects with the targetted vessel... but I haven't tried it.

IIRC, that method would be incorrect as compared to SFB [duck for cover!]. The plasma torp has its own lock-on mechanism and does not need the firing ship to maintain lock-on (which the firing ship would LOSE once it cloaked... Can't cloak and ping targets at the same time, can we

? ), so although the plasma ship CLOAKED and lost lock-on to the targetted ship, the plasma should keep on flying towards the target. That, at least, is how I recall it.

Now, lest this be misconstrued as berating of the patch...
...HECK NO!!!! I can't believe how much this patch made my day! I think this seeking weapon thing (I hesitate to even call it an 'issue') PALES in comparison to prepatch cloak. This will totally redefine how I use the cloaking device in SFC (which had been 'not at all'

)!

But Scipio, your post did make me wonder: is the ECM Yo-yo actually implimented in SFC? I thought it wasn't, but I'm not sure. (NOT NITPICKING! JUST AN ACADEMIC/TACTICAL SFC QUESTION!)

Thanks, again, DF and Testers!

-TF

FireSoul · « **Reply #81 on:** July 17, 2003, 09:34:10 pm »

why don't you go test it yourself?

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #82 on:** July 17, 2003, 09:51:26 pm »

FireSoul:

Just tested it the "firing plasma when cloaked... is lock-on to the targetted ship by the launched plasma lost after fade-out of the firing ship" question.

Three words: Colon, Right Parantheses.

aka

Great job, guys! And getting greater the more I play it!

-TF

NCC2012 · « **Reply #83 on:** July 17, 2003, 10:04:57 pm »

If I wasn't at work right now I'd download it immediately.

Thank you very much for the patch!

Rhaz · « **Reply #84 on:** July 17, 2003, 10:21:47 pm »

Awesome news. Thanks to all who are keeping OP alive!

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #85 on:** July 18, 2003, 01:53:09 am »

Hmm, cloak now really makes disruptors and hellbores ineffective. They do not do damage based on true range (as they should when using the cloak chart). They still use the effective range (R*2 + 5) for hit% and damage. ECM still apparently works to benefit a fully cloaked vessel (though it is unlikely to have the energy to overcome the enemy's ECCM, but it is possible).

So a typical R0 attack now does:

OL Dizzy (83% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 6 *
33% do 3
33% do 1

OL Hellore (72% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 19*
33% do 9
33% do 4

OL Photon (50% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 16*
33% do 8
33% do 4

* pre 2.5.4.10 this is 100%

...for comparison

SFB OL Dizzy (83% accuracy w/ UIM, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 10
33% do 5
33% do 2

SFB OL Hellbore (72% accuracy, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 30
33% do 15
33% do 7

SFB OL Photon (50% accuracy, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 16
33% do 8
33% do 4

Draw any conclusions you wish from that.

Phaser-1's are apparently less devastating at R0 as they ought to be:

EDIT: The following does not appear to be true

Initial Damage; Expected Cloak chart outcomes
16%: 5; 5, 2, 1
16%: 4; 4, 2, 1
16%: 4; 4, 2, 1
16%: 3; 3, 1, 0
16%: 3; 3, 1, 0
16%: 2; 2, 1, 0

All this means is that the average damage per Ph-1 is now just 1.83 (assuming no ECM shift!)
They used to do 3.5 damage. This is a huge change. Take 8 Ph-1's on a G-BCH drilling a cloaked R-NHK on a high speed overrun for example:

Pre-patch: 8*3.5 = 28, which puts a big dent in any shield
Now: 8*1.83 = 14.6, which isn't too bad

EDIT: I'm gathering data. Something isn't right with Phasers vs cloak. The damage is too high.

The immediate disappearance of all seeking weapons targeted on a cloaked ship is really generous. I think that missiles and plasma should still have a chance to lock on (though lower than before). There is now no drama in wondering if you'll shake them off before they hit. It's count to 5 mississippi...blip...all incoming warheads gone.

The SFC cloak is reportedly defensively better than the SFB version in this final patch. If Roms could use WTACs to remain manuverable then they could save some badly needed energy instead of moving at speed 10 to keep a good turn rate while under the massive drain from the cloaking device.

The future looks bright for the Romulan Empire and the Orions. (or maybe not)

Cleaven · « **Reply #86 on:** July 18, 2003, 02:20:51 am »

How does the proxy/cloak relationship work out?

The_Harv · « **Reply #87 on:** July 18, 2003, 04:49:17 am »

Thanks for the patch! It really shows your dedication.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #88 on:** July 18, 2003, 07:41:54 am »

I need to regather data but I'm pretty certain Proximity Photons use the effective range to determine hit% as they always have.

True range: Effective range (R*2 + 5): Hit%

8: 21: cannot be fired
9: 23: 67%
12: 29: 67%
13: 31: 33%
23: 51: 0% (?)
55: 115: 0% (?)

If they hit, they go through the cloak chart:

33% do 4
33% do 2
33% do 1

Up to now they'd do 4 every time.

I also noticed that Erratics don't lower your HET success by 33% as they do in EAW. This isn't a big deal but it is a bug.

MagnumMan · « **Reply #89 on:** July 18, 2003, 10:51:10 am »

I know the feeling, well, kind of.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #90 on:** July 18, 2003, 11:07:35 am »

There is a chance that seekers will maintain lock, using an approximation
of the SFB rules.

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #95 on:** July 18, 2003, 06:46:07 pm »

It's at least a theoretical chance. Looking at the numbers the firing ship
would have to be close and the cloaker's speed high.

Thanks,

Dave

Cleaven · « **Reply #96 on:** July 18, 2003, 07:05:46 pm »

I have been hit after the usual lock loss time, but I couldn't replicate it so I stopped trying. So I guess I wasn't seeing things after all.

MarianoDT · « **Reply #97 on:** July 18, 2003, 08:32:08 pm »

Thanks for the patch. !!!
I will reinstall OP this weekend. After months of playing SFC3, it will be a mayor change.....

Mariano

To all at Taldren....Live long and Prosper.!!!

RogueJedi_XC · « **Reply #98 on:** July 19, 2003, 08:24:16 pm »

Mariano, get ready to get your butt handed to you by the AI. Happened to me so often in the last two days I felt like a total newbie.

2.5.4.10 kicks ass, guys! Thanks!

FireSoul · « **Reply #99 on:** July 20, 2003, 01:32:51 am »

Admiral level means something now.

Max_iCOP · « **Reply #100 on:** July 23, 2003, 09:39:59 pm »

Advanced Era EaW campaigns are well cool.

A BC or a XFF?

Great stuff. I'm so bloody delighted that your keeping up the good work.
SFC is just F'ing brilliant !!!!!

scarecrow · « **Reply #101 on:** July 24, 2003, 12:49:50 am »

I loaded the patch to my original CD version 2.5.0.0 and the program now bombs each time I select Single player -> campaign. Any suggestions? Or can I select old patches rather than this new one? I'm rumming Win98 on a P3-900MHz
...
Thanks for the great support... better than any other game out there...

scarecrow

Rage1 · « **Reply #103 on:** July 24, 2003, 01:40:09 am »

You could also try to run the game in Win95/98 or Win2000 mode. I did a clean install with 2500-25410 patch. After loading, it asked for my CD key and it locked my keyboard out. I set it on Win2000 and it works beautifully.

Ifrit · « **Reply #105 on:** July 24, 2003, 10:58:53 am »

I believe that the presence of any old SP saved campaigns in the folder will cause the CTD (regardless of whether you try to load them or start a new campaign). I had the same problem under XP until I deleted the contents of the folder.

Carrie · « **Reply #109 on:** July 24, 2003, 07:49:41 pm »

Yay for the patch!

*random ponder*

But if it went up that far, shouldn't it be 2.5.5.0, to keep the last number in the 1-9 range?

*nitpicks*

Thanks for patching!

Tulwar · « **Reply #110 on:** July 27, 2003, 10:55:37 pm »

I forgot to thank you for the new patch! Now I feel safe behind my cloak!

Godzookie · « **Reply #112 on:** July 29, 2003, 01:56:56 pm »

I run the patch, it goes through everything just fine (i.e. no errors), but when I load the game the title screen still says 2.5.3.8 and I get no servers listed on the Dynaverse.

Cleaven · « **Reply #113 on:** July 29, 2003, 04:53:50 pm »

No it is not patching correctly . You are doing something wrong.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #114 on:** July 29, 2003, 08:29:41 pm »

Which patch version are you running? are you running the 2538->25410? or the 2501-> 25410? This might not be your problem, but without any other info, it's my first guess.

Toasty0 · « **Reply #115 on:** July 29, 2003, 08:33:05 pm »

silly question, but are you s-u-r-e you are using the 25410 patch?

Best,
Jerry

FireSoul · « **Reply #116 on:** July 29, 2003, 10:26:35 pm »

If all else fails, reinstall and do a 2500->25410.

SPQR Renegade001 · « **Reply #117 on:** July 29, 2003, 10:48:39 pm »

To me, it sounds like there's 2 copies of the game installed. The patch is fixing one, and your playing the other.
Any chance of that?

News:

Topic: SFC:Orion Pirates Patch 2.5.4.10 (Thats Two.Five.Four.Ten) Now Available! (Read 12090 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

David Ferrell

FireSoul

AdmiralFrey_XC

Mog

jdmckinney

Sten

EmeraldEdge

Reptor7

FireSoul

Sethan

Corbomite

Dogmatix!

Strafer

David Ferrell

Tumulorum Fossor

FireSoul

IndyShark

Scipio_66

David Ferrell

Corbomite

Walleye

Tumulorum Fossor

FireSoul

Tumulorum Fossor

NCC2012

Rhaz

TarMinyatur

Cleaven

The_Harv

TarMinyatur

MagnumMan

David Ferrell

Dogmatix!

Tumulorum Fossor

TarMinyatur

3dot14

David Ferrell

Cleaven

MarianoDT

RogueJedi_XC

FireSoul

Max_iCOP

scarecrow

Corbomite

Rage1

SPQR Renegade001

Ifrit

FireSoul

3dot14

SPQR Renegade001

Carrie

Tulwar

Toasty0

Godzookie

Cleaven

Rod O'neal

Toasty0

FireSoul

SPQR Renegade001

David Ferrell

FireSoul

AdmiralFrey_XC

Mog

jdmckinney

Sten

EmeraldEdge

Reptor7

FireSoul

Sethan

Corbomite

Dogmatix!

Strafer

David Ferrell

Tumulorum Fossor

Topic: SFC:Orion Pirates Patch 2.5.4.10 (Thats Two.Five.Four.Ten) Now Available! (Read 12090 times)