The minor ship/upgrade bug thread

[Miramor]

[Edit: Because there are a bunch of strange things not working how they should, I'm turning this into a thread about minor bugs with ships, upgrades, etc. so they can be kept track of as I find them. Hope you guys don't mind.]

Progeny milspec package: 20 metric tons. Provides armor, shield generators, reactor and capacitors, plus other stuff, including jump capability.

Standalone jump drive: 16 metric tons.

If you want to make a Progeny roughly equivalent to the milspec version - Reactor and Cap III, Shield II, etc. - it goes over 20 tons, even if you don't use any armor at all. And that's without jump capability.

It makes sense that milspec stuff should mass less, but this is a little ridiculous. Either the milspec package's mass should be increased, or it shouldn't provide jump capability.

(IMHO, it not providing jump capability would make sense - the Progeny is an interceptor, not a superiority fighter.)

BTW I'm also assuming that there's a thematic reason for jump drives to be so massive (e.g. they contain a singularity). If the 16 metric ton mass is a mistake, I'd be quite happy to see it reduced.

[Xit]

I would think that milspec packages should offer some advantage in space saving, since it's a custom package rather than a collection of modular parts (and so presumably removes some redundancy) but I've seen a few ships now which have negative free space for their milspec versions.

[Miramor]

More milspec fishiness

The Admonisher's Purist milspec package masses about 50 metric tons more than roughly equivalent non-milspec upgrades. The Confed milspec package has the same mass as the Purist one, but does not actually contain anything, making it quite useless.

Some ships have undersized missile slots

The Admonisher can only carry three missiles - two light/medium and one heavy, as each of the three slots has space only for one missile.

[bgaskey]

milspec packages should offer some increase in space/weight efficiency. They should also have perks like faster shield recharge or better armor/weight.

And the derivative milspec package has a reactor several (a lot of) levels beyond what should fit in its tiny upgrade space. Not on my VS box so I can't check now but I'm sure its too high.Ktek beams ftw

[Miramor]

Milspec packages do eat into cargo space.

I won't argue that making them mass less isn't believable. I just find it hard to see why the masses of some relative to their equivalent civilian upgrades vary by such an extreme amount.

[Miramor]

Milspec bugginess

The Dostoevsky Confed milspec package gives insane boosts (>800 radians/sec^2 angular accelaration!), has shields that are far too powerful for such a light fighter (2700 MJ quad), is always damaged, and cannot be bought once sold (even if you have everything you need to buy and install it). It also renders overdrives inoperable.

[Coragem]

MIlspec Packages takes damage from fuel usage.


This should be a priority. makes repair expensive.

[Miramor]

Ewww... THat is not minor.

[Coragem]

AH remenbed another one.

Most Upgrades can be sold for the BUY price.

Note: Weapons do sell for the right SELL price.

Ex. Shizu - cr 250,000
Mil. spec Shizu - cr 300000

Selling Shizu Mil spec package = 300000 !!!!

Anyone noticed the potencial infinite money increase? Lol i got to try this later.
Just need to find a system with the two ships available to buy.

[Xit]

Hehe yeah, once you can afford your first milspec Dodo you can trade all the way up to a Goddard, if you can be bothered and have the choice of enough ships.

Additionally the heavy tractors in the milspec Dodo seem to sell for quite a bit, and you can sell the empty turrets on a Goddard as many times as you like

[ace123]

Perhaps the solution for all of this will be to find some way to make Mil spec packages unsalable. Until we find a proper economic system for this, perhaps milspec should just be an in-built part of the mil spec ships.

I think all of these bugs you see stem from the same root problem--that these are placeholder upgrades (they used to just be built into the ship stats, but then upgrading and selling would decrease the stats of the ships).

[Miramor]

Flimsy subcapital ships

Some subcapital ships, e.g. Oxen and Gleaners, possess strong shields but have pathetic armor and hull integrity. An Ox will take multiple volleys of dumbfire missiles with no damage, but one second of maser fire from a heavy fighter will blow it to smithereens.

[jackS]

Flimsy subcapital ships

Some subcapital ships, e.g. Oxen and Gleaners, possess strong shields but have pathetic armor and hull integrity. An Ox will take multiple volleys of dumbfire missiles with no damage, but one second of maser fire from a heavy fighter will blow it to smithereens.

That's very odd -- the Gleaner is intentionally a little on the flimsy side for a ship of it's size, but even the Gleaner has 28 times the hull integrity rating of a Llama, and the Ox has 542 times the hull integrity rating of a Llama (just to give a sense of scale) so.... there aren't any fighter-mountable weapons that should be able to do that much (271000 VSD) damage in one second.

What exactly was the configuration you were using?

[Sarin]

Maybe it's cause of another thing I noticed....if ship does not have its shields on (like after using SPEC) it blows after taking a very little damage, even if it is subcap or capital ship.

[bgaskey]

The hull integrity of Gleaners seems kinda variable. Sometimes, One pair of df's get a kill and others I need 12 pair or so. But either way its a profitable passtime .

[Miramor]

Flimsy subcapital ships

Some subcapital ships, e.g. Oxen and Gleaners, possess strong shields but have pathetic armor and hull integrity. An Ox will take multiple volleys of dumbfire missiles with no damage, but one second of maser fire from a heavy fighter will blow it to smithereens.

That's very odd -- the Gleaner is intentionally a little on the flimsy side for a ship of it's size, but even the Gleaner has 28 times the hull integrity rating of a Llama, and the Ox has 542 times the hull integrity rating of a Llama (just to give a sense of scale) so.... there aren't any fighter-mountable weapons that should be able to do that much (271000 VSD) damage in one second.

What exactly was the configuration you were using?

Derivative with twin masers and RF masers. The RF masers don't seem to do a whole lot (to anything, really) but a second of fire from the heavy masers will take out a Gleaner or an Ox. The same thing happens with IR lasers.

Interestingly, the Jackhammer open-cycle IR laser doesn't seem to do this. I'm starting to get the feeling there may be something wrong with the way damage and beam stability are used...

Edit: Also I should note that these weapons clearly do most of their damage without significant affect on subcapital ships' shields. Maybe something about the way phase damage is handled is also problematic.

Edit again: I forgot to mention that Mules suffered from this flimsiness problem relatively recently (a couple weeks ago) - at one point I was able to blow up a Mule in two passes using duel Hephaestus cannons. However they seem to be fixed in the current SVN.

[jackS]

Very odd. Nothing has changed with the Hephaestus weapons in months. Last I checked nothing has changed in the code dictating damage for at least as long. Stats for the Mule have somewhat more recently changed, but those changes are not of a degree that would make so large an impact.

I am also unable to replicate the behavior you describe in any test mission.
Equipping a vessel with 4 FS_MW lasers, and firing at an Ox without break for well over a minute was insufficient to cause its destruction (at which point I ceased bothering to fire). Even our fragile friend the Gleaner took nearly 2 minutes to destroy using only the above for FS_MW lasers.

It is possible that this variable behavior you are observing only occurs during default gameplay conditions (which test missions are not). If so, it will take some more time to track down. I think I have some ideas, but, lacking sufficient evidence, none of the guesses worth mentioning at this point.

At the times you are experiencing enemies crumbling before you in undignified fashion, what is your frame rate? (to try to rule out oddities with frame rate < physics simulation rate)

[bgaskey]

Always the usual 40-60 variable fps for me. no noticeable drop or other signs of problems

[Miramor]

Very odd. Nothing has changed with the Hephaestus weapons in months. Last I checked nothing has changed in the code dictating damage for at least as long. Stats for the Mule have somewhat more recently changed, but those changes are not of a degree that would make so large an impact.

Lovely.

I am also unable to replicate the behavior you describe in any test mission.
Equipping a vessel with 4 FS_MW lasers, and firing at an Ox without break for well over a minute was insufficient to cause its destruction (at which point I ceased bothering to fire). Even our fragile friend the Gleaner took nearly 2 minutes to destroy using only the above for FS_MW lasers.

Try using MW lasers, not FS. Rapid-fire beams don't seem to do the job.

Also, are you using autotrackers? It just struck me that I had autotracking on all my weapon mounts,

It is possible that this variable behavior you are observing only occurs during default gameplay conditions (which test missions are not). If so, it will take some more time to track down. I think I have some ideas, but, lacking sufficient evidence, none of the guesses worth mentioning at this point.

I'd been going after Uln Gleaners and Oxen that had been following me around... Does that count?

(Gleaners, at least, were flimsy during missions as well though.)

At the times you are experiencing enemies crumbling before you in undignified fashion, what is your frame rate? (to try to rule out oddities with frame rate < physics simulation rate)

Anywhere from 5 to 30, depending upon how many ships are in front of me (not necessarily visible); it doesn't seem to make a difference.