Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Avallac]

When I use Swift SRM launcher in simulation the rockets are dumbfire instead of being guided like they're supposed to be according to the weapon card (tracking:good). Haven't tried outside simulation. Are they bugged?

They have a pre aim sequence then are dumbfire just like the Squall missile system.

Oh I see figured it out, thanks. Is there some way to know they don't have actual tracking in advance from the description?

[AxleMC131]

Oh I see figured it out, thanks. Is there some way to know they don't have actual tracking in advance from the description?

Not from the refit screen, unless I deliberately put something into the stat card "short description" for the weapon. If you go so far as the read the full Codex entry for the weapon, it does explain it there:

The lightweight but fast missiles share similar construction methods with the Swarmer SRM, but exchange the effective fighter tracking system with a larger payload, more powerful engine and a dirt-cheap “aim and burn” guidance system, the latter of which is active only for the few moments after the missile is launched.

But, yeah, for general purposes there's no real way of knowing this until you try the weapon in combat (or the simulator), as it doesn't show that bit in the short description in the refit screen.

That said, it's not something I've heard complaints about before - I've certainly never had anyone think it has no tracking whatsoever.  If you think it's a big enough issue I'm happy to add something to the short description or tooltip.

[majorfreak]

uhhh...i don't see repurposed fighter bays. i've used the console to grab the hullmod, but it seems i've already gotten it learned. what gives?

[AxleMC131]

uhhh...i don't see repurposed fighter bays. i've used the console to grab the hullmod, but it seems i've already gotten it learned. what gives?

It's part of its own tech type, so you may need to select it as visible from the hullmods screen - custom tech/manufacturers don't show by default. Find the "Jury-Rigged" checkbox in the hullmod selection window and tick it.

(That custom tech type is being removed in the next version for this reason, so you won't have to worry about it for too long.)

<Swift guidance stuff>

I've taken to adding that stuff in 'customPrimary' and 'customAncillary' with highlights as needed.

Good idea. The Swift already has custom primary dialogue, but I think its custom ancillary slot is available. Added to my list of things to do.

[majorfreak]

hmmmm...okay, read what you said just after getting home and troubleshooting a new game with just the mod itself (and the libs)...worked fine there
added all my chosen utility mods (no faction/ship/item stuff) and it didn't work

i'll reload the exact mod config and try again.

edit: waiiiit a minute. i can see it now without doing anything at all (not even that checkbox thing you talked about...pretty sure i never unchecked)
i'll try reloading the game a few times and see if it's futzing up randomly

regardless, thanks for the tip. i activated all my chosen mods from before and loaded up my old save. fighters & juryrigged are indeed unselected. how bizarre...i actually didn't notice there were any toggles at all, so you improved my gameplay for sure

[AxleMC131]

... i actually didn't notice there were any toggles at all, so you improved my gameplay for sure

It's a recurring issue with the mechanic, you're not the first one to fall for it and I ain't the first modder to suffer from it, don't worry. Any mod that adds hullmods under a custom tech/manufacturer tag will have that issue, since they don't display by default. If you ever can't find a mod's hullmods, check that window for any new checkboxes.

Either way, glad to be of help.

[mkire]

so the idea behind repurposed fighter bays is that you turn your carriers into freighters in the field, right? shouldn't that mean RFB isn't a dock-only mod?

[AxleMC131]

so the idea behind repurposed fighter bays is that you turn your carriers into freighters in the field, right? shouldn't that mean RFB isn't a dock-only mod?

... It isn't a dock-only mod, for exactly that reason. Are you using the latest version of DaRa? Repurposed Fighter Bays has been a free-fit hullmod for the last couple of versions (check the changelog).

Version 1.6.6
...
- Repurposed Fighter Bays is no longer a Logistics hullmod (does not require dock to equip/remove)
...

[Kal]

I really love this mod and the way the ships fit pretty seamlessly into the vanilla look while still having a bit of extra style to them. I also really enjoy the expanded range of mining/ logistics ships, really pairs well with mining mods.

[Reens]

Got a runtime exception while raiding Bharata (Persean League controlled). Running Nex.

Code

3290919 [Thread-4] WARN  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.super  - Problem with command of class com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.salvage.Nex_MarketCMD: Ship hull spec [dara_lacerator] not found!
java.lang.RuntimeException: Ship hull spec [dara_lacerator] not found!

[AxleMC131]

Got a runtime exception while raiding Bharata (Persean League controlled). Running Nex.

Code

3290919 [Thread-4] WARN  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.super  - Problem with command of class com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.salvage.Nex_MarketCMD: Ship hull spec [dara_lacerator] not found!
java.lang.RuntimeException: Ship hull spec [dara_lacerator] not found!

Wat. The Lacerator is a weapon... something here thinks it's a ship.

This might not be a Nex bug, but it's certainly Nex-inflicted. Even so, I can't think what file might exist in DaRa where this ambiguity has occured. I'm not sure what files Nex's MarketCMD script looks at (let alone what that script does), so if anyone could take a look and let me know, that would be much appreciated.

[Morathar]

Got a runtime exception while raiding Bharata (Persean League controlled). Running Nex.

Code

3290919 [Thread-4] WARN  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.super  - Problem with command of class com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.salvage.Nex_MarketCMD: Ship hull spec [dara_lacerator] not found!
java.lang.RuntimeException: Ship hull spec [dara_lacerator] not found!

Wat. The Lacerator is a weapon... something here thinks it's a ship.

This might not be a Nex bug, but it's certainly Nex-inflicted. Even so, I can't think what file might exist in DaRa where this ambiguity has occured. I'm not sure what files Nex's MarketCMD script looks at (let alone what that script does), so if anyone could take a look and let me know, that would be much appreciated.

Did you happen to download the hotfix jar that Histidine put out a few days ago? Apparently, there was a bug that broke blueprint raids (as mentioned at http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=9175.msg270625#msg270625). Anyway, that updated jar file is no longer available, but that's because there was a full mod update released yesterday (which likely includes the same fix as well). I'd suggest upgrading to Nexerelin 0.9.5e, then if you still have problems you should probably let Histidine know in the Nexerelin thread...

[Captain Trek]

So I've been looking into how various mods interact with Nexerelin's mining mechanic, and it seems like you've manually assigned mining strength to ships that have mining beam nodes, rather than giving the beam nodes themselves a mining strength. All well and good, but currently the Sturmovik (S) doesn't have any mining strength when it seems very much like the sort of vessel that would have some.

Also, considering its name and surrounding fluff, have you considered asking King Alfonzo if you could use his "Junker" mechanic from Hazard Mining (wherein ships gain OP the more d-mods they have) for the Junker-class gunboat? :V

[AxleMC131]

So I've been looking into how various mods interact with Nexerelin's mining mechanic, and it seems like you've manually assigned mining strength to ships that have mining beam nodes, rather than giving the beam nodes themselves a mining strength. All well and good, but currently the Sturmovik (S) doesn't have any mining strength when it seems very much like the sort of vessel that would have some.

Mining Beam Nodes have been removed for the next version, so this is a non-issue. Regardless...

The Sturmovik (S) wasn't given a mining strength because it wasn't designed as a mining ship, but rather a post-battle salvage vessel (unusually specific, I know, but that's its lore). Admittedly the choice of Mining Nodes on it was a bit silly. It still makes a good mining ship since it can field a wing of Mining Pod drones and a Mining Laser or Hammer Torpedo rack, but it isn't able to function as one inherently - I have no intentions of changing that at this point.

Also, considering its name and surrounding fluff, have you considered asking King Alfonzo if you could use his "Junker" mechanic from Hazard Mining (wherein ships gain OP the more d-mods they have) for the Junker-class gunboat? :V

With previous versions of the Junker, I may have considered this, but much as I enjoy the concept of "junk ships" I agree with the philosophy that they don't make a great deal of sense in Starsector, as far as "how are ships built" goes in the lore and therefore how they show up in the campaign.

The current version of the Junker is named affectionately more than practically - it's built to code, not from scrap, it just happens that the assembly process uses cheap, readily-available and low quality materials to make a ship that costs about two cents and only barely holds together... Kinda like certain Soviet vehicles in WWII. (Hint: Build them in bulk, and treat them like slow Hounds with bigger guns.)

[Captain Trek]

Fair enough. Well in that case I hope the base mining strength of the ships that did have the nodes comes down accordingly, since these ships would now logically be more reliant on player-installed equipment.