[Scooby_Doo]

Actually you can restrict which fighter bay path you want it to use, so I assume it lets you use all 20. Unless it assumes that there are multiple fighter paths for each bay.
Comm units are not destructable and for the turrets.. four flak cannon's won't nearly enough

[Dragon]

It's not about paths that actually are used, debugger throws an error if there's more than to paths, and the ones above the limit don't work.
For the turrets, I'd say that about 15-20 laser turrets placed so they'd have all-round coverage of the station should be enough. Pre-WC3 turrets were rather abstract, so that'd be a good approximation of the station's defenses in WC2.

[Scooby_Doo]

Can a fighterbay have more than one path? I can't remember offhand from saga.  If so I can cut the number of bays down to 8  (4 of them from the large hangars and 4 from the center ones of the smaller launch tubes)

edit: nevermind... i answered my own question, and yes they can.. excellent.

[Starman01]

Yep, more paths work fine. I usually put four path in the smaller bays, and 6 to the bigger ones. Just take care that the path-points have enough space between to ensure a clean launch without collision, otherwise you get a crowd. Funny to watch, but pointless 

[Dragon]

It's not a number of fighterbays that's relevant, it's the number of actual paths. Fighterbay subsystems are fine (the launch tubes should each have it's own subsystem). The problem is, no matter how many bays, only 10 fighters will actually launch at a time, regardless of what you do.

[Starman01]

I never tried more than 6 in a launch wing, because I also added no more then 6 paths to a single fighterbay subsystem. AFAIK that limit of 10 is a matter of the Source Code.

Also, to be honest, where is the need to launch so many at a time ? Can you even group a wing with +10 ships in FRED ?

If you want to have a massive one-at-a-time lauch, create multiple wings, split them up on different fighterbay subsystems, and via fred you can even specify which fighterbay-path they shall take.

Story wise, if you have a model with limited fighterbays, it would be a bit unrealistic to launch so many at a time. Just my 2 cents though, I don't want to hurt your imagination 

[Dragon]

It's not that you need to launch 10 ships at a time (though being able to launch two flights of 6 ships at the same time would be nice), but that all fighterbays can function. Also, restricting bay paths via FRED doesn't change a thing. FSO will not parse more than 10 paths on a model. Period. Number of fighterbay subsystems, number of ships that are launching, paths per fighterbay subsystem are all irrelevant.

[Starman01]

In My days back at Saga I had no troubles making the big carriers with 2 fighterbays and with 6 path's each. However, of course I never launched 10 flights in the same second. On the other hand, where is the problem making them delay 1 second ? Not that anyone would really notice... If that's the limitation, not more than 10 paths used in the same second, so all I can say "so what ? " 

[Dragon]

If that's the limitation, not more than 10 paths used in the same second, so all I can say "so what ? " 

You still don't understand. It's not 10 path used in the same second, it's 10 paths per model. If you launch 2 six fighter flights a second apart, at least two fighters will collide/"stack". The only thing that you'll get from putting 12 paths on a model will be a debug error. And if Saga didn't encountered this, they either didn't ran debug, or managed to remove that limitation in their builds.

[Starman01]

That what I was talking about. I used more then 10 paths, while we still used FSO builds. I'm pretty sure it worked, because I made the banthkara with 12 paths and another one too, forgot which, I think it was the starbase. Debug here and there, does it work ingame or is crashing ? If debug is just *****ing, and it works ingame, what gives ? Still, better ask the SCP. Though I cannot imagine they lowered the number of paths within the last year.

[MatthTheGeek]

If debug is just *****ing, and it works ingame, what gives ?

If you willingly ignore debug warnings, or even worse, errors, you are definitely doing it awfully wrong.

[The E]

Debug is NEVER "just *****ing". Whenever it gives you a warning, it basically means "Proceed at own risk". We can only guarantee that FSO is stable when the data fed to the engine is valid. If you feed it invalid data, you're pretty much on your own.

[Dragon]

I'm pretty sure it worked, because I made the banthkara with 12 paths and another one too, forgot which, I think it was the starbase.

Sure, it worked. The debug warning (my mistake in the previous post, that's not an actual error) can be skipped, and I don't think this one affected anything else. However, did you ever check (in FRED or in game) if any fighter ever flies down bay11 and bay12 paths, or if they appear in "Restrict arrival/departure paths" menus? I'm 99% sure the answer is no. Unless something changed recently, FSO will simply ignore any fighterbay paths above 10.
My point is, there are fighterbays on the starbase that will never, ever have a ship use them, unless there's a limit bump.

[Scooby_Doo]

Alright kids behave 


Anyways for the moment I'm texturing the Predator. I'll get back to the base in a while 

[Dragon]

What's Predator?

[Scooby_Doo]

[Dragon]

Looks like a really heavily updated version of Excalibur. The only issue I have with it is that both lasers and tachons are much too small (at least, if it's about the size of Excalibur).

[Scooby_Doo]

It's a Avenger, excalibur, dragon combo

Actually the gun mounts are the same size as the excaliburs.

2 heavy mass drivers
2 regular plasma (currently the tachyon guns are there) [or perhaps cloudbursts]
2 something (laser, meson...etc) on the wingtips... maybe the tachyon can go on the wingtips.

The excalibur is a superiority fighter, while the predator is a heavy fighter.