Vega Strike Forums

May we have this clarified?
Currently, present weapon models are sized (and oriented) randomly - e.g. Razor is about the size of Gawain. Upgrade space size is one for all. Power consumption varies wildly: Light weapons range from 5 (MicroDriver) to 32 (Pugilist), Medium from 5.33 (ParticleBeam) to 333.3 (Ktek Bolt), Heavy from 10 (FS_MW_Laser) to 257.14 (Dissonance) MW. What should count as "heavy-missile" and what "light-capship-missile" is still unknown.

So, what the specific mount sizes are supposed to mean?
And what are acceptable mesh sizes for weapon models for each mount size? Which may also become equipment volumes for internal mounts, if we're going to calculate meaningful stats.

Mount sizes are in fact mount attributes, not really sizes. The whole point is to have some classification of weapons, and prevent some ships from mounting weapons not designed for their class.

A weapon that requires attribute X must be mounted on a mount that supports X and, the perk is, that upgrades can add attributes (ie: tractor capability, missile launchers).

So I'd suggest you work up a classification the best way you see fit, and if we agree on it, we can flesh them out rather easily.

IMHO, not only physical size should be part of the classification, but also hardware grade. Ie: military grade weapons should be purposedly incompatible with civilian weaponry, and a shady mechanic upgrade could make them compatible.

There's also the power requirements classification. Power-hungry weapons cannot be mounted on "light" mounts, since those mounts lack the capability to pump that much power in, regardless of capacitor banks. You need huge leads and that's a property of the mount point.

klauss wrote:Mount sizes are in fact mount attributes, not really sizes. The whole point is to have some classification of weapons, and prevent some ships from mounting weapons not designed for their class.

A weapon that requires attribute X must be mounted on a mount that supports X

We desperately need this functionality for upgrades.

Huh... ticket? I think it'd be easy.

klauss wrote:Huh... ticket? I think it'd be easy.

Are you sure it will be easy?

I think we are looking at needing mounts for all upgrades. A ship will need a mount compatible with a certain type of reactor to have a reactor. A mount compatible with a type of armor to have armor. Et cetera...

It is a whole new paradigm for upgrades, essential the one currently used exclusively for weapons.

Not mounts. I'm thinking of adding the flags to the units. We can later move them to ship parts.

If no flags are used for upgrades, all fit all units. So it's a feature that can be eased into the dataset.

So you would replace the "Prohibited_Upgrades" column with a list of stings like "RLAAN-REACTOR", "ULN-SHIELD", "HUMAN-SENSOR" and then upgrades would have strings in the same column which, if matching, would make them installable?

Exactly. Do you like that?

Indeed I do. Just making sure I understood before writing the ticket description:

Revised Upgrade Compatibility wrote:Replace the "Prohibited_Upgrades" column with "Allowed_Upgrades" which contains a list of stings like "RLAAN-REACTOR", "ULN-SHIELD", "HUMAN-SENSOR". A unit and upgrade need to have a matching string in this column to be compatible.

If you think this is an easy one, should it be assigned to v0.5.2 or v0.5.3?

Lets try 0.5.2?

Modularity support is important, but already chewed through in [WIP] Modular Ships, Main Engine as Upgrade and Attack on Trinity: Expanding weapons size classes. Now we're just spreading it thin and the original problem will be buried in one page.

klauss wrote:Mount sizes are in fact mount attributes, not really sizes. The whole point is to have some classification of weapons, and prevent some ships from mounting weapons not designed for their class.

Well, yeah, but physical size is a big (sorry) part of what "prevent some ships from mounting weapons not designed for their class" too...
I mean what are those properties? Size, power/heatsink support, some obvious extra functionality (like reinforcement or autotracking controls)...

klauss wrote: IMHO, not only physical size should be part of the classification, but also hardware grade. Ie: military grade weapons should be purposedly incompatible with civilian weaponry, and a shady mechanic upgrade could make them compatible.

I don't see why anyone would bother to incur needless costs on purpose. Given that the setting is rather far from katana-gari hilarity and as you mentioned, anyone who really wants it, will have it.
There can be obvious differences for alien and very outdated or marginal (i.e. Forsaken and semi-experimental) designs, but that's more about enhancing mount type mechanics (in rather obvious ways) than making sense of the currently present part of it.

klauss wrote: There's also the power requirements classification. Power-hungry weapons cannot be mounted on "light" mounts, since those mounts lack the capability to pump that much power in, regardless of capacitor banks. You need huge leads and that's a property of the mount point.

Yes, though it's not like this couldn't be circumvented (as in, recharge the weapon's internal caps slower), or even set explicitly.
Anyway if e.g. Ktek and Razor fall far out of the range, so shall we reclassify or adjust, and what?
As to the sizes... I'll look at more ship models and compare.
As to the power, however -
ParticleBeam: may as well put into Light. There aren't any proper Light beam weapons, and it's weaker than IonBeam in every parameter that matters (slightly longer stability isn't as important as slightly longer refire, good power efficiency doesn't matter much for such low consumption and on a ship with Medium mounts at that, greater velocity doesn't change anything in "hit maxrange in 1 physics tick" area) and thus completely useless. Most ships have it installed in "Light"-only mounts - was it Light, but got bumped to Medium? Why?
Maybe put all lasers below UV one category down? Perhaps with cut ranges for MW ones ('cause it depends on wavelength and all that)?
Razor and Reaper Mount Medium/Heavy, RoF 0.2/0.6 Speed 3600/6000 Power 110/66, DPS 600+60/416.6+66.6? Exchange at least mount classes and speed (possibly more stats, depending on what exactly mini-fusion-bombs and magcells are supposed to be).