[Rga_Noris]

Okay, Ive confirmed that the engines, navigation, bridge, and weapons are effected by this. Its being resolved now and will be fixed soon.

I would like to point out that regardless of Zanes over the top reaction, the subs are not "so far out" from the hull, and that the positioning of the special point of the engines is pretty much the way they had it in retail, save a few critical meters that caused the error. Here are some shots for proof:




So this sentence: "The engine subsystems aren't even pointing to the thrusters, instead they're placed on solid hull above it" should be directed at Volition, because that is the exact way they had it.

If anyone would like to dispute this, do what Zane apparently has no ability to do: compare it to the retail.

I take responsibilities for the bugs, and I'll fix them. But Zane, when you place that "hang em out to dry" attitude in your reply, it gives me half a mind to just leave and say screw it, to hell with all these damn whiney users. When using phrasing like "so far off" and "aren't even" you give the impressions that there was some HUGE mistake that should have been obvious.

Anyways, its being fixed.

[blowfish]

Just make sure the center of all subsystems, destroyable or otherwise, is inside the hull.

[Vasudan Admiral]

People stress out over small things - Rga I don't think Zane intended for it to come across that way, and Zane yeah you do need to be mindful that when you as a hobbyist are talking to another hobbyist. It never helps to make things out as anything other than what they are: small bugs in a particular model in a video game - so just be friendly.

Seriously don't let such things spoil the hatshepsuty goodness!

[Mongoose]

Woah...I never realized subsystem designations were all spherical and stuff.  Learn something new every day.

[Rga_Noris]

Okay, so this issue is now 100% resolved. Sorry for popping off earlier.

If ya'll dont mind waiting a little bit until the new MVPs get release, you'll have the fix, along with many other upgrades then.

[blowfish]

Woah...I never realized subsystem designations were all spherical and stuff.  Learn something new every day.

Yeah.  Standard subsystems are defined by a sphere, so any geometry you hit within that sphere does damage to the subsystem.  Missiles target the center of the sphere, and explode when they reach that or any geometry they encounter first (this is why it's important to have the center inside the ship - otherwise it will do no damage).  Destroyable subsystems are different, since there is an actual object associated with them.

Just so you know

[Commander Zane]

I would like to point out that regardless of Zanes over the top reaction, the subs are not "so far out" from the hull, and that the positioning of the special point of the engines is pretty much the way they had it in retail, save a few critical meters that caused the error.

I'd have to say my input wasn't really over-the-top, if you try firing at the Navigation subsystem with say, Stiletto IIs, they would go to what they believed was the center point, which in truth meant they would detonate several meters from the hull that would affect the subsystem itself, the result would be an undamaged Navigation subsystem.

If anyone would like to dispute this, do what Zane apparently has no ability to do: compare it to the retail.

From what I remember playing the same PI mission with the Retail Hatshesput, I was able to hit the subsystems needed without the problems I had with the new model. And I do believe I was the one that compared the HTL model with the Retail model to confirm that the HTL's centerpoint was too far back, so I have done comparisons before.

..."hang em out to dry" attitude in your reply, it gives me half a mind to just leave and say screw it, to hell with all these damn whiney users. When using phrasing like "so far off" and "aren't even" you give the impressions that there was some HUGE mistake that should have been obvious.

I'd like to know where my "Hang 'em out to dry" attitude is, because last I remember the point of making that post in the first place was to point out that there was an issue that has the potential to cause in-mission problems, so that the person working on the model (That person being you) could take it into account for a possible update.
If I had a "Hang 'em out to dry" attitude, I wouldn't say anything at all, instead I wished to let others know so that they would not run into the same problems.

You know, I thought I was helping out for someone who's done something amazing by finishing and releasing this model for the FS2 community, yet you seem to take any noted discrepancies given as that the person is a whiny user.

[Snail]

Just so you know

It makes so much sense now!

[General Battuta]

*snip*

Seriously just shut up. You are antagonizing one of the community's most critical assets after he already apologized to you.

Next time be polite. He's done that courtesy to you, you can do it to him.

[Commander Zane]

I was being polite the first time when I brought the problem up.

[Kolgena]

Let's just all drop the issue and move on, shall we?

[sigtau]

</derailment>

[Rga_Noris]

<re-railment>

[Rodo]

SHOOT ME BABY.

YESSSSS

 

[Rga_Noris]

Where we were:



How far we've come: (New maps by almighty Zacam)



The MVP's are on their way...

[sigtau]

That... is GODLY.

[Galemp]

Just so long as the diffuse doesn't have any glowmap artifacts on it.

[sigtau]

Zacam talked about it in IRC earlier today, those were removed (and were apparently a pain to remove).

[Kolgena]

Nice! It's much less shinier, which is definitely a good thing. No need for a ship dipped in varnish.

[Galemp]

Zacam talked about it in IRC earlier today, those were removed (and were apparently a pain to remove).

I know. I did it myself. Did he not see my post where I attached them?