Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0

[dderidex]

Quote:
 can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen

Really?  See, I always liked the FASA L-9, and I like my TMP-texture of it for the F5 (see the first page of this thread).  Maybe just me?  

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.  

If you fly Klingon much at all, you'll know the C9 and its cariants is huge steaming pile of doo-doo and the C8s are most definitely an upgrade, but still not incredibly good.  C10K and C5s are the preferred DN types.


 

[Rogue]

Oh, Now you tell me. Where were ya when the Kzinti were disrespecting my D5W? Besides, disruptors just don't leave that crisp smell of hot ozone I crave so much. Not like an enveloping torp when your opponent's shield facings are just about all gone. You can turn but you can't hide.

We now return you to our regularly schedualed topic  

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:
It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  

And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  

That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.

[Klingon Fanatic]

Firesoul,

Please e-mail me so I can fire off the KDN of JrStandfast's I retextured if you still want it.

Qapla!

KF  

[Bonk]

I just did an uninstall (after uninstalling OP+ 3) and clean install of OP last night and after the uninstall I noticed some model folders left over. I'm not sure if they were from your mod, but you may want to double check the uninstaller to see if any were missed.

Is there a rationale for putting custom model folders in the root of the Assets\Models folder? I have put all the custom model folders in the mod I'm working on in one subfolder under Assets\Models.  Are people using the root of the Assets\Models folder to avoid swelling the size of the shiplist file? Is it detrimental to use one subfolder which increases the shiplist file size?

It makes the uninstall easier for me, I remove all the models added with my mod with one line in the NSIS uninstall section:
RMDir /r "$INSTDIR\Assets\Models\SFB_OP"

[FireSoul]

Quote:
I just did an uninstall (after uninstalling OP+ 3) and clean install of OP last night and after the uninstall I noticed some model folders left over. I'm not sure if they were from your mod, but you may want to double check the uninstaller to see if any were missed.

Is there a rationale for putting custom model folders in the root of the Assets\Models folder? I have put all the custom model folders in the mod I'm working on in one subfolder under Assets\Models.  Are people using the root of the Assets\Models folder to avoid swelling the size of the shiplist file? Is it detrimental to use one subfolder which increases the shiplist file size?

It makes the uninstall easier for me, I remove all the models added with my mod with one line in the NSIS uninstall section:
RMDir /r "$INSTDIR\Assets\Models\SFB_OP"  

I dunno. It's really all up to what you think is proper. Me, since I have more than just models, I put everything under opplus/. Then, from there, I copy the shiplist files.

-- Luc

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  

And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  

That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.  

If you'll take a closer look, the nose section of the boom has changed rather substantially, and its size is much bigger.


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN.  Can't help ya there...lol.





 

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN. Can't help ya there...lol.

I know, but it's small details like that which makes all the difference. I could just pick any model and slap 'em on, but if given some effort, things can actually become accurate and more pleasurable.

[jimmi7769]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.  

And give some consideration to using Atrahais' C5 model for it (and other klingon DNs).  I think Atra's Klingons are the best.  The unfortunate thing is that we only have the D5, D5W, C7 and C5...though I think he also did a D7 and that FASA D-10 model.

I use Gow's models for the KCV (C8VK, B10V) and his KBB for the B10s and B11K.
I like P81s B'rel for the KFF and his K'vort for the KDD.
I can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen.  

That's.. not a DN. That C5 model I want would look a lot like a normal DN. That C5 is a D7 with an added warp, which is incorrect.

For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.  

If you'll take a closer look, the nose section of the boom has changed rather substantially, and its size is much bigger.


Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN.  Can't help ya there...lol.





 

But Dog, don't forget this part:

  For now, I'll make the installer copy the standard KDN into the separate directories mentioned above. They'll all look the same, but it will allow modders like you to plug in any model you like more.

the result is that the C5 gets it's own floder......perfect.

[RazalYllib]

Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

This is by no means a complaint or any disatisfaction with the fabulous work FS has done for all of us,  just an observation on the 'historical' source material.

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:

Quote:

Sure, it doesn't look big and stupid like the Taldren KDN. Can't help ya there...lol.

I know, but it's small details like that which makes all the difference. I could just pick any model and slap 'em on, but if given some effort, things can actually become accurate and more pleasurable.  

I think the main point I'm trying to make is that it follows the Klingon "look" for everything from a D6 on up to (in this case) a C5 or other DN...yet is it BIGGER, has another warp nacelle (which is correct) and is sufficiently different on the boom section as to easily differentiate it from any D7 you're likely to see.  It's even clearly NOT a C7 with a center warp nacelle slapped on.


Of course, it's a matter of taste and we always have the option of putting our own models in (which is why I didn't apply the OP+ model pack, just the shiplist).  


I am merely offering up a suggestion regarding a very nice model that "fits" within the Klingon style rather nicely.


I really haven't seen too many custom Klingon DNs out there.  The only other Klingon "big ship" models I like are Gow's reworks of the KCV and KBB.  There's never any shortage of cool Fred models...but most of the other races don't have much to choose from.


 

[Jwest]

Just having an "It seems to me" moment regarding X-weapons, which you are of course welcome to ignore. I like the way you've set an upgrade cycle between X1 and X2 ships, but it occurs to me that there's a logical predecessor to the X1 ships - Bases. Presumably before the miniaturization of these enhanced weapons (and shields, and powersources) is sufficient to put them on ships, these weapons would be available for defense outposts, base stations, and starbases. Or even Planetary Defense bases.

Just a thought - but wouldn't a generation X2 Starbase be a nasty thing to encounter in your shiny new Xcruiser - <G>  

[Fahrenheit]

Quote:
Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

How about 4 PF's?  8 fighters is 2/3 of a squadron, 4 PF's is 2/3 of a squadron (in SFB).  If PF squadrons are generally smaller in SFC, then how about 2?  I just don't care for odd-numbered PF flotillas, except, of course, on the ChickenHawk.

 

[RazalYllib]

Quote:

Quote:
Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

How about 4 PF's?  8 fighters is 2/3 of a squadron, 4 PF's is 2/3 of a squadron (in SFB).  If PF squadrons are generally smaller in SFC, then how about 2?  I just don't care for odd-numbered PF flotillas, except, of course, on the ChickenHawk.

 

4 seems way too many for what was essential a Command Cruiser variant of the Firehawk with fighter bays welded on.
3 would be more like it.

Romulans fielded them as generic Command Cruisers, with a little extra bite.

The later upgrades to the basic Firehawk designs were either quick jury rigged replacements for destroyed DNs ie Regal, Thunder, and Killer, or speciallty ships like the Imperial Standard.

In F&E, the Command Rating of the Superhawk is 9, a nice number btw for its bpv.  Also the fighter inherant in the Command Ship, does not count against the Command Rating limits.

For the non F & E crowd, the Command Rating determines how many ships a designated Flagship, could effectivley participate in a combat round.  The value (9) determines how many ships can fight at once.  The Flagship MUST be one of the three ships with the highest combat rating. Regular Cruisers had only 8 for comparison.  War Cruisers 7 and so on...
 

[Lepton1]

Quote:

Quote:
 can't say I really like any of the other Klingon models I've seen

Really?  See, I always liked the FASA L-9, and I like my TMP-texture of it for the F5 (see the first page of this thread).  Maybe just me?  

Hey, is that you playing IL2 in your sig??  How does that system work for you with IL2??

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Was digging through my mounds of SFB SSD's, and I found what I was looking for.
The Superhawk in SFB carried 8 fighters. It has the A Sparrowhawk modules.
 
There was a single varient the Imperial Standard that carried the Carrier B modules which
are not represented in SFC.

It would be nicest thing to have this vessel carry 3 PF to replace the fighters.
Anyone else have an opinion.

This is by no means a complaint or any disatisfaction with the fabulous work FS has done for all of us,  just an observation on the 'historical' source material.  

I'm not going to put PFs because a certain ship has fighters, sorry. I will however look for E modules for it, and see what can be done. The fighters that were in the rear hull have been changed to shuttles.

[FireSoul]

The following screenshot (you know it well) is of the Taldren stock PFF (LR: Light Raider).
 


I did the following this morning, trying to produce a passable PDBR (DBR: Double Light Raider). What do you think?
 
 


This is part of my first attempts at using 3ds (trial version).
-- Luc


PS. My GF thinks it's 2 ships humping each other. I think she has a dirty mind.

[FireSoul]

I think I've made my choices for the KDNs. Here they are.

1- Appearing as the KDN and KC6 models: (separated in case someone wants to use a different model for a KC6)
This will server for KC6, KC9, KC8 and refits.
 

2- For the KC5, where the SSD clearly shows a reduction in hull boxes and other systems in both rear and front
 

3- For the bastard ship that doesn't fit anywhere till I saw this misproportioned monster, the KB8:
(FYI, the SFB K-B8 is a B10 boom on a K-C8 rear hull. It was designed in case of economic problems. This is also why it has no ADDs in SFB, since the B10 boom and the C8 rear hull didn't house the ADDs: their other halves did.)
 


So far, the current KBB will be used for the B10, and the op+3.0 model ( KSBB ) will be used for the B11.


Comments?

[RazalYllib]

Understand FS, no problem.

Putting E modules on it defeats the purpose of my suggestion.

Go ahead and keep it as is.