Print

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

[Android9k]

A semi-continuation of Modern Carriers

What's gone: Concord, and with it: Dynamic Manufactory, PD Drone Deployment, Fighter Bay Standardization, Autopilot Interface, The core that converts all fighters into support fighters, Oversized Manufactory.

What's back: Flux Quantum Entanglement, Burnout Reactor, and Bastion Core.

What's new:
- Lunalib dependence.
- Overhauled logic for the fighter auto-dock mechanic - in addition to now being optional - fighters no longer have to be set to regroup to dock once they are damaged.
- Lunaconfig toggle for "fearless" drone behavior which prevents unmanned fighters from automatically docking.
- Lunaconfig options to set the thresholds for the 'conservative deployment' hullmod, and the ability to customize how quick to redock for repairs fighters are based off of their refit time (categories are <=5 seconds, <=15 seconds, and >15 seconds).
- Various Lunaconfig options for automated regrouping for ai controlled carriers.
- Optional "Formation Fighters" mode which makes most fighters move and attack in formation.
- Optional "Hardy Fighters" mode which gives all fighters Insulated Engine Assembly.
- Optional settings increase the speed and maneuverability of all fighters and fighter-esque ships.

What's unchanged: Everything not already mentioned.

I mostly updated this mod for the sake of the fighter redocking stuff. That is to say - don't get your hopes up regarding the lost concord dependent features.

Requires LunaLib
Download Postmodern Carriers

[Android9k]

Changelog

1.1.4
- Fixed a bug introduced by the last patch that prevented Auto Return from working properly.

1.1.3b
- Aria's strikecraft type ships now receive the same treatment as the ones from Armaa.

1.1.3
- Added options to increase the base speed and maneuverability stats of all fighters, as well as ships with Armaa's Strikecraft hullmod.

1.1.2
- Fixed a potential crash related to Fighter Bay Load Balance/Manufactory Load Balance

1.1.1
- Recompiled with j17

1.0.6
- Fixed an issue where having the auto-return mechanic enabled would cause ships with the "Fighter Armor Removal" hullmod to attempt to repeatedly redock while "out of combat", causing a CTD in some cases.
- Fighters with a range of 0 (support fighters) will no longer receive changes from the formation fighters option, possibly addressing an NPE.

1.0.5b
- Fixed a potential NPE when the auto-regroup carrier function was enabled.
- Added a new setting "Hardy Fighters" which adds Insulated Engine Assembly to any fighter that doesn't already have it.

1.0.5a
- Fixed an oversight where Modern mode Fighters wouldn't return/dock once the critical threshold had been reached unless they were close to the carrier. Legacy behavior had them return at that stage regardless of distance.

1.0.5
- Addressed an issue that was preventing most lunaconfig options from applying changes mid-game.
- Added several options to configure fighter auto-return behavior
   - Off disables the feature; Modern (legacy behavior) makes it so that fighters will not auto-return unless they’re already close to the carrier; Postmodern (default) makes it so that fighters will auto-return from any distance, as long as the conditions are met.
- Moved Formation Fighters to the Fighter Behavior tab from Dev options.
- Fearless Drones now makes unmanned fighters ignore the critical threshold entirely.
- Added several options revolving around forcing carriers to regroup when certain condtions are met.
   - Regroup Ratio sets how many fighters must be lost before the carrier regroups.
   - Bomber Regroup Toggle determines whether carriers will be forced to regroup if all of its bombers are lost.

1.0.4a
- Auto-dock mechanic no longer applies to the wings of Armaa strikecraft.

1.0.4
- Formation Fighters changes:
   - Bombers no longer receive attack_at_an_angle. It was causing buggy behavior and it wouldn't have benefited them much even if it didn't.
   - Wings with weapons that have an attack range of 150 or less only receive rapid_reform. This will re-enable vanilla 'swarm' behavior and cause melee fighters to be more effective than they were going on repeated attack runs.

1.0.3
- Addressed an issue with swarm core that prevented it from being properly flagged as incompatible with modules.
- Minor grammatical and spelling cleanup.

1.0.2a
- Addressed a potential CTD when using Formation Fighters.

1.0.2
- Adjusted the behavior of Fearless Drones to only engage the redock sequence when they're sufficiently close to the carrier.
- New dev option: Formation Fighters - Gives all fighter wings the "rapid_reform", "leader_no_swarm", "wingmen_no_swarm", and "attack_at_an_angle" tags. Changes require a full game restart to take effect.
  - rapid_reform makes lagging fighters catch up to their leader.
  - leader_no_swarm makes the leader initiate a new attack run when it reaches the taget.
  - wingman_no_swarm makes the fighters stay in formation with their leader.
  - attack_at_an_angle makes the wing attempt to attack at an angle intead of attacking head on. Behavior depends on the exact weapons the fighters are equipped with.


1.0.1
- Re-added the relevant files for Electronic Superiority for compatibility with any saves that were using an older version of Modern Carriers. Still unacquireable in-game since it was replaced by Support Carrier Core.

[close]

[AdamLegend]

Great work!

[TimeDiver]

Question: Was there a reason why the Electronic Superiority hullmod was disabled/removed in this release build?

I kept a somewhat older build with the 'org.sutopia.starsector.mod.moderncarrier.hullmods.regular.FighterECMPMinor.clas s' file around, extracted it and 'added' it into the current 'jar/SutCarM.jar' archive, and at-a-quick-glance, there weren't any resulting CTDs, though I'm unsure if the hullmod actually does anything...

Having said that? I am willing to do save editing to remove all instances of 'ecmfighters' from my saves if it came down to it, but I went through the above to avoid that; so as the current mod maintainer I ask the above: Was there a reason it why it was disabled/removed? And if so, what am I risking by re-enabling it?

[Android9k]

Question: Was there a reason why the Electronic Superiority hullmod was disabled/removed in this release build?

I kept a somewhat older build with the 'org.sutopia.starsector.mod.moderncarrier.hullmods.regular.FighterECMPMinor.clas s' file around, extracted it and 'added' it into the current 'jar/SutCarM.jar' archive, and at-a-quick-glance, there weren't any resulting CTDs, though I'm unsure if the hullmod actually does anything...

Having said that? I am willing to do save editing to remove all instances of 'ecmfighters' from my saves if it came down to it, but I went through the above to avoid that; so as the current mod maintainer I ask the above: Was there a reason it why it was disabled/removed? And if so, what am I risking by re-enabling it?

Sutopia disabled it himself due to it being made obsolete by Support Carrier Core. I removed the class and relevant entry in hull_mods.csv because I was initially trying to clean up the files and get my bearings with regard to what I could and couldn't keep. I just never thought of it again so I didn't get around to reintroducing it for the sake of legacy saves.

I'll toss it back in with a future update, probably within a day or two.

[Android9k]

I'll toss it back in with a future update, probably within a day or two.

And by "day or two", I mean now.

[EnigmaniteZ]

typos for ya:
support carrier core: casued (should be caused)
fighter emergency launch: replaceemnt (replacement)

neat mod. think i'mma try it.

[Cimbri]

Does this conflict with ArmA?

[Android9k]

Does this conflict with ArmA?

It works fine with arma, although any wings that belong to an arma strikecraft will redock with it as though it were an actual carrier, when/if the hull thresholds are reached. I can fix this if people find it incongruous.

[Unclius]

I hope those new wing dev commands get implemented into hull mods soon ))

[EnigmaniteZ]

found another typo, took me a few seconds staring at it to figure out why my brain was going 'huh?!?'
swarm core, in the added paragraph section: replacenemt

[Android9k]

found another typo, took me a few seconds staring at it to figure out why my brain was going 'huh?!?'
swarm core, in the added paragraph section: replacenemt

Thanks, I'll clean it up for the next update.

[EnigmaniteZ]

found an issue i'm not really certain the cause of. right now, I can only test with Swarm Carrier core, but...

decided to try out a ship, a locomotive class from HMI supervillains I believe. modular ship. it has several modules, and the main module and 2 hangar modules have 2 fighter slots. had the thought: why not try this new swarm carrier hullmod on it? well, it works on the main module just fine, but that's where that ends; when deploying the main ship, the modules have....fighters selfdestructing nonstop.
thought "maybe it's because they're cruisers when the main is a capital, or something", tried it on my cumulonimbus from TDB; it's another modular ship, but all 3 are capital sized. well...same result. tried removing all the fighter related stuff, same result. "hey maybe it's the inbuilt hullmods" and swapped to a fresh, naked ship to try. same thing.

conclusion: if swarm carrier core is installed in a submodule, then those fighters are  spam selfdestruct and do nothing else.
I'm running armaa, but other than that idk if there's anything here that could cause issues. if you want a log I can try to provide it, but....there wasnt anything related to fighters in there it looked like.

[Android9k]

found an issue i'm not really certain the cause of. right now, I can only test with Swarm Carrier core, but...

decided to try out a ship, a locomotive class from HMI supervillains I believe. modular ship. it has several modules, and the main module and 2 hangar modules have 2 fighter slots. had the thought: why not try this new swarm carrier hullmod on it? well, it works on the main module just fine, but that's where that ends; when deploying the main ship, the modules have....fighters selfdestructing nonstop.
thought "maybe it's because they're cruisers when the main is a capital, or something", tried it on my cumulonimbus from TDB; it's another modular ship, but all 3 are capital sized. well...same result. tried removing all the fighter related stuff, same result. "hey maybe it's the inbuilt hullmods" and swapped to a fresh, naked ship to try. same thing.

conclusion: if swarm carrier core is installed in a submodule, then those fighters are  spam selfdestruct and do nothing else.
I'm running armaa, but other than that idk if there's anything here that could cause issues. if you want a log I can try to provide it, but....there wasnt anything related to fighters in there it looked like.

This is because Sutopia coded it to be incompatible with "station modules" which, evidently, apply to ship modules as well. It was supposed to display a warning informing the player of said incompatibility, I'm not sure why it isn't. I'll have to think about how I want to resolve this: either rework Sutopia's custom "incompatibility" code (or at least its display logic), or just remove the module incompatibility entirely.

[EnigmaniteZ]

well, I dont know what to tell you, but looking at a little of the source code I know that's not the only thing not functioning properly; look at swarmcarrier's getCanNotBeInstalledNowReason: you arent supposed to be able to remove the hullmod while the slot has a fighter in it if the text is to be believed...but you can do just that.
given the logic that's in place, my assumption is that the problem is not  the isStationModule check,  as that would prevent installation entirely. and the fact it isn't prevented says it has to be something else.
kinda inclined toward thinking it might be the mutual exclusion check >.>