Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.1

[FireSoul]

Quote:
 

Quote:
 Looks like the S-SLV1 (Syndicate Slaver?) does not point to a model. Model link problem? Causes crash to desktop. You see nothing but the redicle where the model should be.

I was playing a convoy raid mission and the enemy was protecting 4 or 5 slavers.......but they just were'nt there?  

Firesoul, did you see this post on page 5 about the Syndicate Slaver?  

Yes. Is fixed for next version too.

.. I don't want to do a temporary fix EXE because I want to leave Assets/Models alone. The manual quickfix is:

copy opplus/models/pslv/ directory to assets/models.   This will fix this OP+ 3.1 problem.
 

[762]

FS, a quick DIP-related question if I may.

Are the model pointers for 3.2 the same as 3.0?

[FireSoul]

Quote:
FS, a quick DIP-related question if I may.

Are the model pointers for 3.2 the same as 3.0?  

There will be differences. More models.. or "refactored" models.. (if I ever get my ass going and start doing models with various number of pods).
.. and some model renames too, for readability.



So, will 'yes' be enough as an answer?

[762]

My specific question is, are the entries for the ships in the 3.0 list for model pointers going to be the same for the same ships in the 3.2 list?

Hope that makes sense.  

[FireSoul]

Most will be the same. Some will change so to clean up the names. (2 different schemes used)

ie: fedd (Early Fed DD) --> stays same
ie: fdd+ (Fed DD with TMP warps) -> I think I'll rename it to just fdd. I have done any of this yet.

.. I can't tell you what or where yet.. so: sorry, You'll have to find out at the release.

[762]

Fair nuff. Thanks FS.

[FireSoul]

Ok. 2 Note to self:

1- Romulan Monitors are supposed to be able to cloak. Vicious slow things, eh?
2- Been asked to place the maulers in more appropriate places in the shiplist, closer to their hull class.

[SSCF_LeRoy]

Speaking of monitors, what are they and what are they good for?  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Speaking of monitors, what are they and what are they good for?    

Monitors are primarily System defense and presence units. They are often assigned for defense of a colonized planet and such.

Also.. (and this is the cool historical part), they are part of the process of building a base.
1- Send a Monitor. Establish a presence.
2- send Tugs with the sections (pods) needed to build a modular base. (SFB's Mobile Base)
3- build the modular base.
4- later on, upgrade the base into a BS (Base Station)
5- BS -> BATS
6- BATS -> SB..

[SSCF_LeRoy]

Quote:
Monitors are primarily System defense and presence units. They are often assigned for defense of a colonized planet and such.

What makes them better at doing this than a cruiser? (I'm talkin' about a standard workhorse vessel. Nothing fancy here)

 

[762]

They are closer to a base than a cruiser. They are a lot slower but have dreadnought-level firepower.

Of course they are much cheaper to build than a dread.

[SSCF_LeRoy]

Basically a mobile base of command?  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Basically a mobile base of command?  

Not quite. They are defenders. They are geared and designed for defense. While it's true a cruiser could do the same job, not so for periods to up-to months at a time. That would be a waste of a cruiser.

[SSCF_LeRoy]

Thanks fer the education, guys  

[jimmi7769]

Another question on the same topic as 762:

If I were to use the 3.2 installer and then put an older 3.0 based shiplist in place would all of the model pointers have somewhere to point??  
Are all of the model folders you put into place for the 3.0 list still in the 3.2 release with just more additional models or did you remove some model folders and replace them with new ones??

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Another question on the same topic as 762:

If I were to use the 3.2 installer and then put an older 3.0 based shiplist in place would all of the model pointers have somewhere to point??  
Are all of the model folders you put into place for the 3.0 list still in the 3.2 release with just more additional models or did you remove some model folders and replace them with new ones??  

I thought I was clear, but ok.. once more from scratch:
This isn't gonna be plug-and-play. There are changes. The models dirs ARE different because of more splits between models, and some renames (for style cleanup).


No, you don't just replace the models.
-- Luc

[Rogue]

Firesoul, I have a question for you concerning the differences between the Kzinti CCX and CCXm. There is a huge difference between the two with the m suffix seeming to indicate a mirv refit of the CCX. The CCX is equiped with 4 M racks that are removed with the m refit, among other changes, and only graced with a single M rack. Is this correct??? Just wondering here as the CCX is a much more deadly war ship.

Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?    

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Firesoul, I have a question for you concerning the differences between the Kzinti CCX and CCXm. There is a huge difference between the two with the m suffix seeming to indicate a mirv refit of the CCX. The CCX is equiped with 4 M racks that are removed with the m refit, among other changes, and only graced with a single M rack. Is this correct??? Just wondering here as the CCX is a much more deadly war ship.

The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?

Quote:

Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?    

Oddity.

[Rogue]

Quote:
  The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?  

Hmmm, well... ya it was Taldrens. However, the BPV for the CCX is 237 and for the m-refit it goes for 157 in OP+. I'll update my specifications. Shoot, they couldn't be more cut and paste. A little this, a litlle that and a lot of OP+...

Quote:

Another little thing is the Z-DFm has a yfa of 7 and yla of 7. An oddity or an error?    

Oddity.  

OK, I like odd stuff. Thank ya.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:
  The CCX you looked at, was it mine or Taldren's?  

Hmmm, well... ya it was Taldrens. However, the BPV for the CCX is 237 and for the m-refit it goes for 157 in OP+. I'll update my specifications. Shoot, they couldn't be more cut and paste. A little this, a litlle that and a lot of OP+...

That BPV error is known, and has been pointed out to me many times before.. It's supposed to be 257 with the m variant.