Is there a galactic mod going on?

[Starbuck]

Don't get me started on the new series. [:@]

It has it's merits when considered by itself.

It could have used all new names at least. It didn't have to ruin some of those original charcters. Col. Tigh as a drunk and Boomer as a Cylon, give me a break!

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Alternatively...

you could be complaining about how its the same!

There is just NO WAY to satisfy movie game or book geeks! Just think about all those complaining about LoTR!

[:D]

[HomeFries]

At the risk of straying this thread further off topic:

There is a huge difference between taking liberties to keep things fresh versus completely bastardizing characters and thier relationships.

One need only look at Star Trek to see how to span multiple generations and series, all of which have their own unique flavor, but are still faithful in every way to the Star Trek franchise.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Yeah but none of them are remakes of Original Trek.

I mean look how much the new Trek show gets hosed on for 'interfering with Canon'.

[HomeFries]

Bingo!

[CmdrRanger]

Anyway, to wrestle this back on topic, I've been tinkering around with Starbuck's .def files, and I've made several changes. The biggest (pun not intended) is scale; his models were huge if you are going off of Magic's 1 grid unit=1 meter scale (mad props to Jeff Russell's Starship Dimensions page, btw). Unfortunately, the now smallified models lack the proper 'feel' his did, so I'm still tinkering there.

I was able to get fighters to land correctly by moving the landing spot from -148 to -170 (or maybe it was -178?) and increasing the final approach point out to -1000 from -800. I tried mightily to get shuttles to launch from the bay using overlapping decks, but Starshatter doesn't seem to want to allow you to launch LCA's from a dedicated bay, especially if there are fighter-only bays ahead of that one. For example, I can launch shuttles just fine from the forward flight decks (1&2) provided I make a spot for them, but if they are launched from the dedicated shuttle bays (21&22) they'll just preflight and sit there. What I have now basically works, it's just not accurate as far as the series goes, which is a bit irritating.

Overall, though the models are fantastic... The Galactica's landing lights are a thing of beauty, and thinking about what a pain it must have been to position those turbo laser turrets makes my head hurt... Great work, Starbuck!

Now I just have to find time to start working on the .def's for the Cylon Basestar model I found...

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I'd like to hear more about this LCA deck problem. Can you post the launch bay subsystems?

[Starbuck]

Thanks.

I did keep the scale huge to get the size "feel" right. I think Milo's ships are also on a huge scale. It just felt better you can see fighters from a longer distance and made for a better visual overall.

Thanks for working on the landing path.....I fooled around with that for a while.
I couldn't get the shuttles to take off out the rear either.

Yes, I still dream about the laser turrets...just 2 pixels higher...no damn I needed to go lower....CRAP..now its to far into the ship. Only 15 more to go!!!!![X(] The turrets also need to be configured so they engage anti-ship missles as well as fighters. I didn't get that in the .def either.

I have a Cylon Base ship 90% complete. Need landing decks ( hard to do on a round ship), .def refinement and oh yeah those turrets placed [:(]. I could put it on my site if you wanted to compare to the one you have. It has excellent skins! Just let me know.

I would like to get a hold of your .def. Did you change any of the other ships scale tankers, Colonial Movers etc?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Starbuck, you probably need to DEF a Drone-class weapon for Raiders to launch in order for it to be interceptable. Besides that way you can customize the drive flare and such, and the explosion is bigger.

[DamoclesX]

you got a pic of any colonial fighters you are using?

[CmdrRanger]

ORIGINAL: TheDeadlyShoe

I'd like to hear more about this LCA deck problem. Can you post the launch bay subsystems?

Here you go... Note that this differs from Starbuck's orignal in several ways; particularly in that I trimmed out about 18 flight decks for ease of use, renamed them, and I alternate them on different sides of the ship (again, not accurate to the show, but I got tired of seeing everyone launch off the starboard outrigger).

Code: Select all

 //Fighter Launch Bays
 
 flightdeck: {
    name:       "Launch Tube 1",
    abrv:       "Launch Tube 1",
    azimuth:     1.57,   
    loc:        ( 116, -32.25, 71),
    cam:        ( 112, -32.25, 71),
    start:      ( 116, -32.25, 71),
    end:        ( 133, -32.25, 71),
 
    spot:       { loc: ( 116, -32.25, 71), filter: 0x7 },
 //Comment out the next line to deactivate shuttle launches from this tube
    spot:       { loc: ( 116, -32.25, 69), filter: 0x8 },
    launch:     true,
    max_ships:  1,
    cycle_time: 5,
 
    size:       5,
    hull_factor: 0.5,
    }
 
 flightdeck: {
    name:       "Launch Tube 2",
    abrv:       "Launch Tube 2",
    azimuth:     -1.57,   
    loc:        ( -116, -32.25, 71),
    cam:        ( -112, -32.25, 71),
    start:      ( -116, -32.25, 71),
    end:        ( -133, -32.25, 71),
 
    spot:       { loc: ( -116, -32.25, 71), filter: 0x7 },
 //Comment out the next line to deactivate shuttle launches from this tube
    spot:       { loc: ( -116, -32.25, 69), filter: 0x8 },
    launch:     true,
    max_ships:  1,
    cycle_time: 5,
 
    size:       5,
    hull_factor: 0.5,
    }
 
 
 flightdeck: {
    name:       "Launch Tube 3",
    abrv:       "Launch Tube 3",
    azimuth:     1.57,   
    loc:        ( 116, -32.25, 66),
    cam:        ( 112, -32.25, 66),
    start:      ( 116, -32.25, 66),
    end:        ( 133, -32.25, 66),
 
    spot:       { loc: ( 116, -32.25, 66), filter: 0x7 },
    launch:     true,
    max_ships:  1,
    cycle_time: 5,
 
    size:       5,
    hull_factor: 0.5,
    }
 
 flightdeck: {
    name:       "Launch Tube 4",
    abrv:       "Launch Tube 4",
    azimuth:     -1.57,   
    loc:        ( -116, -32.25, 66),
    cam:        ( -112, -32.25, 66),
    start:      ( -116, -32.25, 66),
    end:        ( -133, -32.25, 66),
 
    spot:       { loc: ( -116, -32.25, 66), filter: 0x7 },
    launch:     true,
    max_ships:  1,
 
    cycle_time: 5,
 
    size:       5,
    hull_factor: 0.5,
    }
 
 //Shuttle Launch Decks
 //Uncomment the following to replicate the no-launch LCA problem...
 
 //flightdeck: {
 //   name:       "Shuttlebay 1",
 //   abrv:       "Shuttlebay 1",
 //   azimuth:     3.1416,   
 //   loc:        ( 102, -32.25, -170),
 //   cam:        ( 100, -32.25,  -167),
 //   start:      ( 102, -32.25, -165),
 //   end:        ( 102, -32.25, -800),
 
 //   spot:       { loc: ( 102, -32.25, -170), filter: 0x8 },
 //   launch:     true,
 //   max_ships:  1,
 //   cycle_time: 5,
 
 //   size:       5,
 //   hull_factor: 0.5,
 //   }
 
 //flightdeck: {
 //   name:       "Shuttlebay 2",
 //   abrv:       "Shuttlebay 2",
 //   azimuth:     3.1416,   
 //   loc:        ( -102, -32.25, -170),
 //   cam:        ( -100, -32.25,  -167),
 //   start:      ( -102, -32.25, -165),
 //   end:        ( -102, -32.25, -800),
 
 //   spot:       { loc: ( -102, -32.25, -170), filter: 0x8 },
 //   launch:     true,
 //   max_ships:  1,
 //   cycle_time: 5,
 
 //   size:       5,
 //   hull_factor: 0.5,
 //   }
 
 
 //Recovery Decks
 
 
 flightdeck: {
    name:       "Landing Bay 1",
    abrv:       "Landing Bay 1",
  
    loc:        ( 102, -32.25, -160),
    cam:        ( 95, -32.25,  -137),
    start:      ( 102, -32.25, -500),
    end:        ( 102, -32.25, -160),
 
    approach:   ( 102, -32, -1000),
    approach:   ( 800, -50, -800),
    approach:   ( 800, -100, 0),
    approach:   ( 800, -100, 800),
    spot:       ( 102, -32.25, -160),
 
    recovery:   true,
    max_ships:  1,
    cycle_time: 5,
 
    size:       20,
    hull_factor: 0.5,
    }
 
 flightdeck: {
    name:       "Landing Bay 2",
    abrv:       "Landing Bay 2",
 
    loc:        ( -102, -32.25, -160),
    cam:        ( -100, -32.25,  -137),
    start:      ( -102, -32.25, -500),
    end:        ( -102, -32.25, -160),
 
    approach:   ( -102, -32, -1000),
    approach:   ( -800, -50, -800),
    approach:   ( -800, -100, 0),
    approach:   ( -800, -100, 800),
    spot:       ( -102, -32.25, -160),
 
    recovery:   true,
    max_ships:  1,
    cycle_time: 5,
 
    size:       20,
    hull_factor: 0.5,
    }
 
 
 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

This appears to be a bug. However, it works fine if you place one of the shuttle-decks first.

[CmdrRanger]

Except when you do that, the fighers won't launch correctly... Catch 22, it seems

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I have found that if you package the fighters in the order of the launch decks there is no problem. For example, with the 2 shuttledecks first and 4 fighterdecks second, if you package 2 LCA flights and then 4 fighter flights, it will work fine. Conversely, if you package 4 fighter flights then 2 LCA flights, then only 2 flights of fighters will launch. It appears the carrier isn't checking if a launchbay can launch a fighter type before assigning it there.

IMHO, just launch the shuttles out of the tubes for now.

[Starbuck]

Like this?

[AncientAngel]

Nice..

Yeah a Full Blown mod of this needs to be done on this as well. The new Mini-series has its merits and a bunch of new ship designs to take in as well.

Other mod thoughts would be a Farscape, Robotech-Macross and Star Gate mods. [:)]

[Destraex]

is this available?? The site seems dead