Unit Errata
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
- Colonel
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Oct 12 2008
Re: Unit Errata
Please consider adding a Worldwide bomber design, roughly tech year 1948, with a max missile size of 10.
In the current setup, non-majors cannot build a nuke smaller than size 10 before tech years in the 1970s, nor an aircraft with max missile size above 8 until roughly the same time period. It is actually substantially cheaper/faster to develop silo launched ICBMs than get a nuclear gravity bomb that your planes can carry.
The caveat is that all of this depends on no unit design trading with a major.
In the current setup, non-majors cannot build a nuke smaller than size 10 before tech years in the 1970s, nor an aircraft with max missile size above 8 until roughly the same time period. It is actually substantially cheaper/faster to develop silo launched ICBMs than get a nuclear gravity bomb that your planes can carry.
The caveat is that all of this depends on no unit design trading with a major.
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: Unit Errata
The UK doesn't have the Blue Steel Missile design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Steel_(missile)
Skybolt is also missing from the USA (Maybe UK should have it as a partner). It didn't quite make it to service but was actually built and tested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Steel_(missile)
Skybolt is also missing from the USA (Maybe UK should have it as a partner). It didn't quite make it to service but was actually built and tested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: Unit Errata
'49 scenario. Unit "Gibka-S" relies on "future helicopter designs" even though its an AA unit. Should probably have a different dependency.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: Unit Errata
Oops. Tech1 should be 254, not 245. Fixed for next update.
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: Unit Errata
'49 scenario, UK destroyer d-80 Sheffield is has an invisible model
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: Unit Errata
Seems we set it to an ID for one of Nerei's models that isn't published yet...
Fixed for next update
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: Unit Errata
Maybe it was for the one I was supposed to give you?
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
-
- General
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Jan 11 2016
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
I have made a model with the ID of 1877 (which is what the Sheffield is using) but given that it is an E2 Hawkeye AWACS aircraft I highly doubt you want to represent a british Type 42 Guided missile destroyer with it. I also never have had plans for warships with that ID. It is right in the middle of a lot of aircraft model ID's.
Now the very next model in the database the DDG-168 Tachikaze uses model 187 and is a Guided missile destroyer of basically the same period of time.
Model 187 i the Georges Leygues class frigate.
Also formerly Sheffield used model 142 which is the Flight I Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer model.
My guess based on what I can find is someone thought the Georges Leygues class frigate model was a better fit than the Arleigh Burke and changed the ID to that but added a 7 by accident.
Now the very next model in the database the DDG-168 Tachikaze uses model 187 and is a Guided missile destroyer of basically the same period of time.
Model 187 i the Georges Leygues class frigate.
Also formerly Sheffield used model 142 which is the Flight I Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer model.
My guess based on what I can find is someone thought the Georges Leygues class frigate model was a better fit than the Arleigh Burke and changed the ID to that but added a 7 by accident.
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: Unit Errata
Could be. I've got with 187 for now.
Do you remember, did I give you an ID to use for your model?
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: Unit Errata
No, for the last model i'd send you the model and you'd reassign it manually.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: Unit Errata
hmm, maybe I was planning for 1877 but forgot to tell Nerei. Maybe you should ask him to assign you an ID within his set so you don't conflict with his mod?
I don't mean to pass the buck, but he's the one making all the models these days
I don't mean to pass the buck, but he's the one making all the models these days
-
- General
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Jan 11 2016
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
As I assume SGTscuba intends to make multiple models the main issue I see is not coordinating model/picnum ID's as that is just splitting some ID's but working with the same UGBITS file.
That has the potential of being problematic both for us and any end users as scuba will have to mirror anything I do and vice versa.
Honestly if BG are not really planning to add anymore models I suggest taking an empty UGBITS range and using that. There should be several of those available.
Also I suggest finding some form of naming convention. I am personally using the _tx suffix which in hindsight is not ideal but when I picked it all I had to work around was the official BG models against which it worked just fine.
I suggest this to avoid name conflicts as these are not something the average user can be expected to resolve.
Depending on how scubas plugin exports it might require a 3D modelling program and some knowledge on how to use it to do it.
For those of you curious all of this is why I am not exactly thrilled at the idea of say Steam workshop support for 3D assets and have argued against it being implemented half-assed. It has the possibility to blow up in our collective faces and it can happen from something as simple as a lack of coordination.
Just to be clear this is not to say I do now want to try and coordinate with SGTscuba or really anyone else. I am happy to do that I am just saying we might as well try and make it as easy for us all as possible and only do difficult things like have multiple people working on the same UGBITS file when we have to.
That has the potential of being problematic both for us and any end users as scuba will have to mirror anything I do and vice versa.
Honestly if BG are not really planning to add anymore models I suggest taking an empty UGBITS range and using that. There should be several of those available.
Also I suggest finding some form of naming convention. I am personally using the _tx suffix which in hindsight is not ideal but when I picked it all I had to work around was the official BG models against which it worked just fine.
I suggest this to avoid name conflicts as these are not something the average user can be expected to resolve.
Depending on how scubas plugin exports it might require a 3D modelling program and some knowledge on how to use it to do it.
For those of you curious all of this is why I am not exactly thrilled at the idea of say Steam workshop support for 3D assets and have argued against it being implemented half-assed. It has the possibility to blow up in our collective faces and it can happen from something as simple as a lack of coordination.
Just to be clear this is not to say I do now want to try and coordinate with SGTscuba or really anyone else. I am happy to do that I am just saying we might as well try and make it as easy for us all as possible and only do difficult things like have multiple people working on the same UGBITS file when we have to.
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: Unit Errata
Thanks for your insight Nerei. I think you make a lot of sense.
@Scuba - Can you PM me about getting you an ID for your model? I'll reserve in our system within our ID ranges.
@Scuba - Can you PM me about getting you an ID for your model? I'll reserve in our system within our ID ranges.
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: Unit Errata
The UK can research the "Gladiator" interceptor, but no design for the "sea gladiator" is available for research (these actually equipped UK carriers). It should probably have the same stats, but be capable of landing on aircraft carriers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_G ... r#Variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_G ... r#Variants
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: Unit Errata
Having been built in such small quantities we didn't see it as being significant.