Matrix Games Forums

Design tab :

Tech tab :

P.S.: Also, I got a non-working spreadsheet with REF# errors when I tried to download it as .ods.

So I could only save it as .xlsx. Which as you might know is a bad format.

So in the future, could you please avoid the evil Microsoft (and Google) software, and *especially* their shitty "Web" versions ? Thank you.

So I could only save it as .xlsx. Which as you might know is a bad format.

xls is a propeitary format from microsoft. It is indeed a rather bad format.

xlsx is a open format from microsoft, that uses the same "XML Files in a renamed ZIP container with public specifications" approach that ODS does. It is not a bad format.

It's bad too : AFAIK Microsoft just took most of the xls format and computer-generated mostly unreadable documentation based on it.

So it's "open" a bit like the demolition plans for Arthur Dent's house were "on display" :

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

(the "locked" bit aside, maybe)

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Thank you, but the AP cost penalty is still wrong, you calculator says +70% while it's +80% for my Monitor :
Last Engine Power is listed as 1200, last Weight before Movement Redux is listed as 1660, and not 1510 like in the Calculator.
With 1660 manually input I *do* get +80%.

I don't know how you managed to figure out the math :
This ends up with a 72.2% Weight / Engine Power ratio, which *should* lead to a +30% move cost modifier
(see manual p.328 - I *think* that I'm interpreting the brackets correctly ??),
with then the 11 Monitor size adding an extra +30% on top of that,
for a total of +60%, and not +80% ??

Thanks for reporting it! the issue was than the monitor class has different armor values than heavy/TD class (my bad for not seeing it earlier). I added a new table which has the correct values for weight and material costs.

About your complains from using that format, well, Excel/google sheets/libreoffice are the only applications of their kind that I know how to use it, I don't mind trying to export it to another format, but since you said than any of their sub-formats are still bad for you I don't know which one would sit your better, and even then, as I told you, since I don't know other apps maybe I can't figure out why the calculator stops working.

Cheers!

PS: The link its for the web-version but its done that way since otherwise I can't upload it to the forums and I wouldn't like to upload it to other cloud service like mediafire/mega. You don't need to use the web version to use the calculator, you can download the file

.ods is the Libre Office format, and I'm totally fine with it !

Cloud hosting is best done yourself, using solutions like Nextcloud, and I think that many companies provide complete home server solutions, for a reasonable price if you don't want to set it up yourself ? You'll probably still need an offsite backup (house fire...), and cheap non-GAFAM solutions exist for that too.

----

Thank you for fixing it so quickly !

Oh and there's another discrepancy that I forgot about :
In addition for the cost for the Light Tank above (still) being wrong,
the final cost for that Terrorizer is 209 Metal, 192 IP, 5 Machines while the calculator shows 191 Metal, 180 IP, 5 Machines.

This is actually great, thank you!

Also, while this isn't working yet, I think that "Fuel Mix Optimization" should instead be "Fuel Efficiency" ?

When mounting a 400mm armour, the 4 first item costs end up as #N/A.

On the Mk2 of the Terrorizer, the calculator only gives half of the effective Atomic Weapons Optimization bonus.
As well as half of the Armor Piercing Optimization bonus, but this might be because it's the Tech % that is supposed to be used, rather than the Bonus % ?

Also, why did you limit the design roll fields to 50-151 ?

I have a Machinegun with 167% weapon design (123% structural, 157% base), and I don't think that tanks are any different ?

ORIGINAL: Clux

Currently the only thing "left" to get "right" its the oil/energy consumption

I can help you with this. I'm pretty sure I just cracked the code on how fuel use is calculated. Refer to my post here for details:
fb.asp?m=4986717

To calculate fuel use with fuel efficiency you can take the number you get from that formula, multiply it by 10, and multiply that by the inverse of your fuel savings percentage. You can then either keep it as your final operational fuel cost or divide further by 10 to get the fuel cost per hex.

ORIGINAL: GuardsmanGary


I can help you with this. I'm pretty sure I just cracked the code on how fuel use is calculated. Refer to my post here for details:
fb.asp?m=4986717

To calculate fuel use with fuel efficiency you can take the number you get from that formula, multiply it by 10, and multiply that by the inverse of your fuel savings percentage. You can then either keep it as your final operational fuel cost or divide further by 10 to get the fuel cost per hex.

Thank you so much! I added the formula and added your name to the credits

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Also, why did you limit the design roll fields to 50-151 ?

I have a Machinegun with 167% weapon design (123% structural, 157% base), and I don't think that tanks are any different ?

I didn't expect somebody to get a roll above 150%, but made corrections to the bugs than you reported so everything should work fine now

I didn't expect somebody to get a roll above 150%, but made corrections to the bugs than you reported so everything should work fine now

According to Vic, the value is calculated by:
(Base Design / 2) + 4D20, the "modified by structural design"
www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4830993

Without knowing the exact Impact of Structural Design, I had kinda asume the cap to be ~150.
But apparently it is simply used as a percentile multiplier?

Thanks for the credit.

There's an issue with designs heavier than 1949 weight returning incorrect fuel use values. I see that the highest weight band factor is 19 and any design that exceeds 1949 weight is shunted down to that factor. A heavy tank equipped with a beam gun, 300mm of liquid armour and a triple diesel engine, for example, is 1965 weight, so it should have a fuel use of 56 per hex, not 53.3 as reported by the sheet.

The heaviest design possible that does not use nuclear engines is a monitor tank with a combined beam gun, a triple heavy diesel engine and 400mm of either steel or liquid armour. This design is 2960 weight and falls into the 30th weight band. Before fuel efficiency it should use 101 fuel per hex.

ORIGINAL: GuardsmanGary

Thanks for the credit.

There's an issue with designs heavier than 1949 weight returning incorrect fuel use values. I see that the highest weight band factor is 19 and any design that exceeds 1949 weight is shunted down to that factor. A heavy tank equipped with a beam gun, 300mm of liquid armour and a triple diesel engine, for example, is 1965 weight, so it should have a fuel use of 56 per hex, not 53.3 as reported by the sheet.

The heaviest design possible that does not use nuclear engines is a monitor tank with a combined beam gun, a triple heavy diesel engine and 400mm of either steel or liquid armour. This design is 2960 weight and falls into the 30th weight band. Before fuel efficiency it should use 101 fuel per hex.

Thanks! I extended the weight bands till 4000, hopefully thats beyond the hard limit

ORIGINAL: Clux

ORIGINAL: GuardsmanGary

Thanks for the credit.

There's an issue with designs heavier than 1949 weight returning incorrect fuel use values. I see that the highest weight band factor is 19 and any design that exceeds 1949 weight is shunted down to that factor. A heavy tank equipped with a beam gun, 300mm of liquid armour and a triple diesel engine, for example, is 1965 weight, so it should have a fuel use of 56 per hex, not 53.3 as reported by the sheet.

The heaviest design possible that does not use nuclear engines is a monitor tank with a combined beam gun, a triple heavy diesel engine and 400mm of either steel or liquid armour. This design is 2960 weight and falls into the 30th weight band. Before fuel efficiency it should use 101 fuel per hex.

Thanks! I extended the weight bands till 4000, hopefully thats beyond the hard limit

Thanks! I extended the weight bands till 4000, hopefully thats beyond the hard limit

You could just use a Formula instead.
Weight <50 = 0 (you set the 0-band to 1. Only Transports and realy light buggies can get that low).
otherwise:
(WEIGHT/100), round to the nearest integer

That way you need no table at all and it scales indefintely.

P.S.: I think I just had a idea regarding Airforce Range. Maybe it is actually using the Move Cost Modifier to modify the Range?
Now if only the Horsepower Ratio was not wrongly fixed to 1G planets...

Thanks a lot for the credit and about fixing/improving it *so* fast !

I think something could be off with the movement modifier display in the newest version (1.06)

Setting the rolls to 100 and the applied science to all zeroes:

1) putting in a Medium tank with the minimum weight max power values - 25mm H, Double heavy D, 25mm P
results in an eng power/weight of 261% and a movement modifier of -5% (green)

2) putting in a slightly heavier (but more realistic) values of Medium tank - 88mm L, Double heavy D, 50mm S
results in an eng power/weight of 111% and a movement modifier of +10% (red)

The power weight "feels" right, but the movement modifier doesn't seem to match the data table U24:V37 at all

(Thank you so much for updating this to take into account Fuel!)