Topic: OP+ 3.3 Corrections Thread

[FireSoul]

R-KVL.   I think the second R-Torp is on a "phantom" hardpoint and does not show up.  This is the case on the LB5 list (based off of OP+ 3.0).   I check the 3.3 list, and the hardpoint layout seems to be the same.

OP+'s R-KVL 2 R-torps are on the same mountpoint, due to a lack of mountpoints.

[FPF-DieHard]

R-KVL.   I think the second R-Torp is on a "phantom" hardpoint and does not show up.  This is the case on the LB5 list (based off of OP+ 3.0).   I check the 3.3 list, and the hardpoint layout seems to be the same.

OP+'s R-KVL 2 R-torps are on the same mountpoint, due to a lack of mountpoints.

I know what happened, Ship edit gets funky when you open more than one copy at a time.  Thanks for checking.

[Age]

  I would check out the Mirak Z-MCC starboard phaser arcs out I think in is incorrect with the port side.They are both showing different arcs.I am not sure if this intentional or not ?

[FireSoul]

  I would check out the Mirak Z-MCC starboard phaser arcs out I think in is incorrect with the port side.They are both showing different arcs.I am not sure if this intentional or not ?

Do you mean the graphics are incorrect?
That's normal with the secretly added arcs to SFC:OP.

[Age]

  No.I mean the arcs don't seem right when I click the arc button.The arcs for the port phaser are RA and the Starboard are FFR.This going by my EAW firing arcs chart.FireSoul could please check this out.Thanks.

[FireSoul]

  No.I mean the arcs don't seem right when I click the arc button.The arcs for the port phaser are RA and the Starboard are FFR.This going by my EAW firing arcs chart.FireSoul could please check this out.Thanks.

Let me explain this differently: The arcs are correct, the graphics for them are not. That's because these are arcs were some that were added as easter eggs in a patch and no artwork was available.

[Age]

  Thanks FireSoul.

[FireSoul]

I'm sooo tempted to do this one: Stellar Journal 2/Captain's Log 28, page 16.

USS Kaufman: A standard four-photon destroyer, the Kaufman was, for reasons never really explained, built with the single warp engine facing backwards. This unique arrangement allowed the ship to fly at top speed away from the enemy while keeping all of her torpedoes bearing on the pursuing enemy force. This ship served with distiction on the Klingon front, unitl its continuing retrograde bought it within range of Romulan squadrons. There, its success continued. Romulan ships maneuvered to uncloak "behind" the fast-moving destroyer, only to find themselves facing the four hot torpedo tubes of the "Killer" Kaufman.

As a personal policy, I tend not to add ships from Captains' Logs.. .. but this one seems .. too funny.
Should I dare do a unrefitted F-DD this way, with the model showing the warps going the other way and the registry match the Kaufman's?   

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm sooo tempted to do this one: Stellar Journal 2/Captain's Log 28, page 16.

USS Kaufman: A standard four-photon destroyer, the Kaufman was, for reasons never really explained, built with the single warp engine facing backwards. This unique arrangement allowed the ship to fly at top speed away from the enemy while keeping all of her torpedoes bearing on the pursuing enemy force. This ship served with distiction on the Klingon front, unitl its continuing retrograde bought it within range of Romulan squadrons. There, its success continued. Romulan ships maneuvered to uncloak "behind" the fast-moving destroyer, only to find themselves facing the four hot torpedo tubes of the "Killer" Kaufman.

As a personal policy, I tend not to add ships from Captains' Logs.. .. but this one seems .. too funny.
Should I dare do a unrefitted F-DD this way, with the model showing the warps going the other way and the registry match the Kaufman's?   

Okay, that ship description is an obvious joke, but how funny would it be to put a few "backwards facing ships and models? 

[Age]

I'm sooo tempted to do this one: Stellar Journal 2/Captain's Log 28, page 16.

USS Kaufman: A standard four-photon destroyer, the Kaufman was, for reasons never really explained, built with the single warp engine facing backwards. This unique arrangement allowed the ship to fly at top speed away from the enemy while keeping all of her torpedoes bearing on the pursuing enemy force. This ship served with distiction on the Klingon front, unitl its continuing retrograde bought it within range of Romulan squadrons. There, its success continued. Romulan ships maneuvered to uncloak "behind" the fast-moving destroyer, only to find themselves facing the four hot torpedo tubes of the "Killer" Kaufman.

As a personal policy, I tend not to add ships from Captains' Logs.. .. but this one seems .. too funny.
Should I dare do a unrefitted F-DD this way, with the model showing the warps going the other way and the registry match the Kaufman's?   

Okay, that ship description is an obvious joke, but how funny would it be to put a few "backwards facing ships and models? 

I would put the torps in ra and fa arc and leave the warp naccelle alone and do the same for F-DD+.

[FireSoul]

Reading the rest of the article, it's obviously a joke.. however a feasible one. ~
I don't think I'll be doing this one after all (but it's still tempting!) but I found that little tidbit amusing enough to share.

[FPF-DieHard]

Not really a "correction" per se, but I did notice that shields cost twice as much power as they do in SFB.

THis is addressable, should it be?

[Mace]

I'm sooo tempted to do this one: Stellar Journal 2/Captain's Log 28, page 16.

USS Kaufman: A standard four-photon destroyer, the Kaufman was, for reasons never really explained, built with the single warp engine facing backwards. This unique arrangement allowed the ship to fly at top speed away from the enemy while keeping all of her torpedoes bearing on the pursuing enemy force. This ship served with distiction on the Klingon front, unitl its continuing retrograde bought it within range of Romulan squadrons. There, its success continued. Romulan ships maneuvered to uncloak "behind" the fast-moving destroyer, only to find themselves facing the four hot torpedo tubes of the "Killer" Kaufman.

As a personal policy, I tend not to add ships from Captains' Logs.. .. but this one seems .. too funny.
Should I dare do a unrefitted F-DD this way, with the model showing the warps going the other way and the registry match the Kaufman's?   

Yeah, this is definately a joke article.  How many fast moving 4 photon Fed destroyers have you ever seen.

[FireSoul]

Not really a "correction" per se, but I did notice that shields cost twice as much power as they do in SFB.

THis is addressable, should it be?

This is link to the size class of the ship. I think the way to fix this is.. have another patch...      .. and we all know there won't be another official patch. Have you checked in EAW?

[FPF-DieHard]

Not really a "correction" per se, but I did notice that shields cost twice as much power as they do in SFB.

THis is addressable, should it be?

This is link to the size class of the ship. I think the way to fix this is.. have another patch...      .. and we all know there won't be another official patch. Have you checked in EAW?

That would mean I'd have to find and install EAW

Does size class determine any things else besides Sheild cost?  You could always tweak this so the power draw matches what it should match in SFB.

[FPF-DieHard]

Corbomite pointed this out last night.

There is a bug, but not with the cost of shields.   The bug is with the reporting of the costs of shields in the power panel, a CA will say it's drawing 4 points but it is really only drawing 2. 

Actual power draw is correct.

[FireSoul]

Corbomite pointed this out last night.

There is a bug, but not with the cost of shields.   The bug is with the reporting of the costs of shields in the power panel, a CA will say it's drawing 4 points but it is really only drawing 2. 

Actual power draw is correct.

buh. *sputter* .. ok..
Weird one. This needs of course to be logged as a SFC2 bug. There's nothing I can do from this end.

-- Luc

[Max Power]

Found an error. The LNH survey variant (LNH mission Q in F&E) has 4 APR instead of 4 cargo. The 4 cargo instead of the APR is required in the survey mission.

[FireSoul]

Found an error. The LNH survey variant (LNH mission Q in F&E) has 4 APR instead of 4 cargo. The 4 cargo instead of the APR is required in the survey mission.

Thanks .. I'll look at this shortly.

[FPF-DieHard]

I know you already fixed this for 3.4, but the F-BCH and F-DW ships do not have models.siz entry.

It is quite funny seing the F-DW larger than an F-NCA