Modding questions (single thread)

[Avimimus]

Hello,

I will be using this thread to ask all of my questions.

I am busy bringing the Marakan ships up to the Terellian standard.

I have used "hull_factor" on the Dantari ships to make their systems more durable. Is the hit bubble "scale" value important for the durability of sub-systems? I find that the Courageous class ships are very durable when compared to their counter parts.

Also I take it that all shields absorb a percentage of fire (effectively letting less of it get through).

I am curious about your oppinions on how starship combat works (with me I generally fire on a few of the enemies LR systems, fly by them and toss a few torpedoes into their fusion reactors -which is how it always ends).

Should fusion reactors be more durable? What are the weak spots of the game ballance?

Also with the terrain:
I have used Mtnscale and rescaled the buildings to make the terrain seem much larger. I have noticed a number of other values: There are a couple of values (one a "scale" value) near the top of the section and further down there a scale values (near Mtnscale).

What do all of these values do? Where can I find out?

Thank you

[wdboyd]

Salutations,

scale:  "A number used to multiply the verex coordinates in the mesh when rendering the ship in the game engine".

Relates to the SIZE of the object or ship displayed in game.

Obtain the Starshatter Mod SDK file. It provides a LOT of such information.  www.starshatter.com

[Avimimus]

A correction to the questions above: When refering to the hitbubble I should have called it "size" instead of "scale" (and the hit bubble seems to be slightly relevant to LOS issues)

Thank you, I have looked through the SDK info...

I know Mntscale only modifies the Y axis. What do the two other terrain "scale" values do?

Also:

I have found that in a head on pass between two cruisers both will destroy each others weapon systems... What do you think would be the simplest way to double the durability of all ship systems? Does every system on every ship have to be modified individually?

[wdboyd]

I know Mntscale only modifies the Y axis. What do the two other terrain "scale" values do?

Also:

I have found that in a head on pass between two cruisers both will destroy each others weapon systems... What do you think would be the simplest way to double the durability of all ship systems? Does every system on every ship have to be modified individually?

[/quote]

I suggest you think in three dimensions.

Where the system is actually located in the ship may add protection. Deeper into the structure will provide some protection.

Setting the systems "hull value" at 1.0 is helpful in providing protection.

Purhaps reducing the size of a component would make it harder to hit. That would depend on a weapons area of effect on impact or explosion.

If I were you, I would investigate your ships SHIELDS and how they are set up in the simulation. There's another modding site that can help. I'll try to locate it for you.

Here it is. It has information that will help. [:'(]

http://loki.stockton.edu/~stk7284/starshatter/

[Avimimus]

Thank you for the advice,

What initially started out as a minor upgrade of the Marakan/Dantari ships has gotten out of hand...
All weapons and ships have been modified and gameplay has been changed considerably. The terrains have been modified and there is a draft tweaking of the OOB for the campaign. I am now getting close to an initial release.

Two questions:
- does anyone know how to edit the flight deck/airfield settings (in particular for catapult velocity and height off of the deck)?
- How prevalent are atmospheric missions in the campaign? How many of them have AI/waypoints that navigate through mountains?

[Avimimus]

Also, is anyone aware of how collision avoidance is triggered?

[wdboyd]

ORIGINAL: Avimimus

Two questions:
- does anyone know how to edit the flight deck/airfield settings (in particular for catapult velocity and height off of the deck)?
- How prevalent are atmospheric missions in the campaign? How many of them have AI/waypoints that navigate through mountains?

Am I the only modder out there to help? If so, we may be in trouble. I'm barely competent and still learning myself.

The spot setting in the ships flight deck deffing determins the start launch point. From this point the craft moves to the start position.

The associated start setting determines the actual launch point from which the craft takes off from the flight deck.

Example:

flightdeck: {
name: "Deck 1",
abrv: "Deck 1",
design: "Flight Deck",
loc: (00, 27, 74)
cam: (30, 26, 95) // camera view position
start: (17, 25, 57) // Actual takeoff point. 25=altitude
end: (2e3, 50, 2500),

spot: { loc: (-5, 21, 50), filter: 0x7 }, // Taxi From Locations
spot: { loc: (-5, 21, 70), filter: 0x7 },
spot: { loc: (-5, 21, 60), filter: 0x8 },

I believe the launch speed is hardcoded in the simulation out to the 2500 position in the above example. One could shorten this distance to allow the speed set for your Nav 1 to kick in sooner.

Collision avoidance is hard coded in the simulation. To the best of my knowledge, we have no actual control over its settings. Of course... when building atmospheric missions, one can ensure no collisions with mountains by nav point positioning and settings. If they are too low... expect a mountain collision.

[Avimimus]

This problem I have appears to be due to my resizing of the fighter meshes to 1/2 normal size. This is needed for the rebalance.

I have tried four different strategies (air launch, higher speed at launch, various resizing of the runway and launch heights for the fighter) but the fighters keep "stalling" during take off and gentle falling to the ground (where they promptly explode in a fireball).

This is really iritating me as I could have a release version of my mod by now. What should I do?

[wdboyd]

ORIGINAL: Avimimus

This problem I have appears to be due to my resizing of the fighter meshes to 1/2 normal size. This is needed for the rebalance.

I have tried four different strategies (air launch, higher speed at launch, various resizing of the runway and launch heights for the fighter) but the fighters keep "stalling" during take off and gentle falling to the ground (where they promptly explode in a fireball).

This is really iritating me as I could have a release version of my mod by now. What should I do?

Craft size should have nothing do with this. Unless you have raised their gross weight so far that they are not capable of flight in a atmosphere. Or reduced their engines thrust too far.

Use a stock fighters .def file with your crafts name in place of the stock crafts name. Then place it in your takeoff mission. If it flies correctly... it's your crafts .def file that is the problem.

Also, you should have nav points for your AI to follow upon launch. These nav points have speed settings. Ensure you have at least 250 set for the first nav points speed.

Check out some of the missions that come with the simulation. Especially those that have aircraft launching. Look at the Map screen. You will see their nav points displayed.

Use stock data whenever able... then adjust things one thing at a time to ensure they work.

[Avimimus]

This does not bode well...

I am using stock craft with stock missions. The only changes are to the mesh scale size, the fighter collision avoidance distance and the number of hitpoints.

In a normal mission the craft start on the runway, correct? Now if I decrease the mesh size the wheels/mesh don't touch the runway. Could this be the problem?

In other words, whatever the special code is that prevents fighters falling through the runway when control is handed to the player/ai only works if the fighters have the right dimensions.

If this is the case then the problem would have to do with some nominal ship size values that are separate from the mesh values (something like this must exist as the buildings I shrunk have their HUD markers/target point for rockets hovering a short distance above the mesh).

Thank you for all of the help,

[wdboyd]

You can't change the collision avoidance distance, and if you can... don't

No special code is required to keep a fighter from falling through a runway.

A stock craft in a stock mission taking off from a runway will do so. If it doesn't... you've changed and messed its flight charateristics up in your changed .def.

Also... capital class ships cannot work in a planets atmosphere. Only fighter, attack and LCA types.

[Avimimus]

Aha! We found it.

I had to 1) increase the fighter avoidance value (so that the AI would try to avoid the runway and fly upward and 2) decrease the carry mass for all weapons. I will probably release an alpha soon (and begin rebuilding it so that it is more functional in the campaign mode).

[wdboyd]

Feels good when a plan comes together, doesn't it. [:D]

[Avimimus]

Very much!

I have corrected another bug in the airfields and successfully tested the default campaigns. I did find one more bug though...

In Trochanter and Marak systems the campaign crashes. This happens even without the mods installed which suggests that the mods have caused problems in the savegame.

I have a set of questions about the Marakan Hulks:
- Should they be classified as a Marakan fleet (or should they be neutral)?
- Should an intel/news item appear explaining them (days 22-26)?
- Should I be worried that they are appearing in the Marakan system and yet are officially in the Xanthe system (which doesn't exist)?
- Should they be shooting back?

I think the problem may relate to these areas or scripts relating to these areas. Is there anything else different about the end of the campaign (with the exception of the Zolons which work fine in single missions)

Thank you

[Avimimus]

Ha! It was the patch!

The game was defective, I needed 5.01!

Not only that, but I have found a way to implement my modifications as part of 5.01 -so it will be possible to run both at the same time (compllete with multi-player).

I should be able to have a release in a couple of weeks!

[wdboyd]

[:D]

[Master_QG]

Yeah the new patch makes my game crash also. Since I don't use track IR I got rid of it.

[Avimimus]

Okay, I think this is the last problem.

Two questions:
- I want to ensure that if a fighter looses its control systems or main drive it will explode. How do I make these components essential?
- Is there any way to modify the campaign files so that more ships will appear "in trail" so as to cover the flanks of the Vendetta class? Is there any other way or would I have to add slower versions of the destroyers to the game and place them in the OOB with the cruisers?

Thank you,

[wdboyd]

Set the hull_factor of the selected system very low. Say, hull_factor: 0.001. The hull_factor dictates how much the item is protected by the ships hull. Reduce it, and the system(s) become damaged much faster and therefor more easily.

This may not make the craft explode immediately but it should become a sitting duck after losing it's main drive.

The fighter type flights can be ordered into various formations. Capital ships can not. Sorry. In custom missions, one can set them up to follow in trail at the same speed. In the dynamic campaign? Not likely.

One should be able to add slower ships via some serious deffing. [;)]

[Avimimus]

Okay, so I will have to duplicate a few ships (shouldn't be that hard...)

As for the fighters: The problem is actually that they are getting disabled to easily. You see the mod made them smaller as it improved atmospheric flight and fighter vs. fighter combat. But at the same time capital ship weapons had their dispersion increased. I have not been able to increase the collision distance for energy weapons. Anyway, the result is that after every major battle there are a few disabled fighters floating around and these would take weeks to destroy. It becomes necessary to turn off sensors and set a waypoint a couple hundred K off the map in order to end mission.

So if there is a way to make the system essential for the ship to survive (like a reactor on a Marakan ship) such a technique could be used to avoid these mop up issues. The alternative (which you just made me think of) would be to make the drive system invulnerable.