Player asp cannot mount Fuel scoop

[Frame]

what topic says... I caught this because i copied its entry, wondering why I could not buy the fuel scoop for my ship.

so I bought an asp, and my suspicion was confirmed.. The asp cannot mount the fuel scoop because it is not in optional_equipment, and the Fuel scoop has not set available_to_all, meaning it defaults to false..

while I endorse that not all ships should have the ability to mount scoops., I would suggest that this also where expanded to include the missiles.

However in a fashion such that OXP ships can set an option like

Code: Select all

ship_incompatible_with_equipment =
(
     "EQ_MISSILE",
     "EQ_FUEL" //(for example the sidewinder)
)

when incompatible with fuel the ship should not be able to carry any at all..

Of course for the ASP itself the relevant entry in optional_equipment should be made

Cheers Frame

[Kaks]

I wonder how the bug went unnoticed in the first place... Oh, well...

Good point with the feature request, that way people could play a 'realistitic' sidewinder game when using illicit unlock...

[Eric Walch]

I wonder how the bug went unnoticed in the first place... Oh, well...

I don't think this is a bug but intentionally. The asp is a pure fighter without any extras. e.g. it has also no cargo bay. (max_cargo = 0). So it can't use scoops to pick up cargo and it was very likely intended that it could only refuel at the station (and no sunskimming)

[Kaks]

Thanks Eric for clarifying that point!

[Frame]

I wonder how the bug went unnoticed in the first place... Oh, well...

I don't think this is a bug but intentionally. The asp is a pure fighter without any extras. e.g. it has also no cargo bay. (max_cargo = 0). So it can't use scoops to pick up cargo and it was very likely intended that it could only refuel at the station (and no sunskimming)

hmm yes,, remember now... a quirk or something happend to my ASP back in the day, where I got an ASP with 10 tons of cargo..

thought it had a 10 ton cargo bay... I usually know these figures by heart...

[Frame]

hmm I just thought about it

still think it is a bug, not intended behaviour

A pirate ASP has the same stats but with a scoop(0.98999999999999999) and no cargo space makes no sense... in fact, I'm pretty certain it triggers "HOLD_FULL" in unusual ways.. and explains some of the strange behaviour I have always seen ASPs to have, as in they do not engage you..

The ASP is larger than the Constrictor, that did as far as we know, only have experimental shields withstanding anything but military lasers., and the constrictor has 15 t of cargo space. and 0.6 lm speed..

(is the constrictor even protected by source against beam and pulse lasers as it should be ?)

Also as this is a trading game, the ASP should really have some cargo space, I think 7-10 t sounds about right, since a mamba at 0.320 lm speed, can carry 10 ton..

And that it cannot mount a fuel scoop, is an oversight since you should all-ways be able to scoop fuel, as a player as this was one of the "key features" of the classic game.

in this case one thing does not exclude the other, since if your cargo hold is full/or none exist-ant you cannot scoop gold/gems/platinum anyway, since these will occupy 1 ton Pr. scooped cargo pod regardless of the amount of gold/gem/platinum within it. that is until you dock, then gold/gems and platinum is moved to your cockpit..

So it should really have a scoop.. and the pirate asp some cargo space to prevent unusual AI behaviour...

[Cmdr James]

It seems to me that the asp is not intended to have a scoop, or cargo, and should have both removed from npc models.

I dont see this as a problem. Not every ship needs to be a good choice for players. In fact I would like to see more difficult choices in buying ships.

[Frame]

It seems to me that the asp is not intended to have a scoop, or cargo, and should have both removed from npc models.

I dont see this as a problem. Not every ship needs to be a good choice for players. In fact I would like to see more difficult choices in buying ships.

The thing is, that the player has no way of knowing that it cannot mount a scoop, since there is no listing of what equipment is compatible.. a low tech level fuel scoop would presumably be able to be mounted on a high tech ASP...

And also a real problem:

PirateAI.plist

"HOLD_FULL"

When no hold is existent

Code: Select all

"ATTACK_SHIP" = {
        ATTACKED = (setTargetToPrimaryAggressor, "setStateTo: ATTACK_SHIP"); 
        "ENERGY_LOW" = ("setStateTo: FLEE"); 
        ENTER = (performAttack); 
        EXIT = (); 
        "INCOMING_MISSILE" = (fightOrFleeMissile, "setStateTo: FLEE"); 
        "TARGET_DESTROYED" = ("setStateTo: COLLECT_LOOT"); 
        "TARGET_LOST" = ("setStateTo: COLLECT_LOOT"); 
		"ENTER WORMHOLE" = ("setStateTo: ENTER_WORMHOLE");
        UPDATE = (); 
    }; 
    "COLLECT_LOOT" = {
        ATTACKED = (setTargetToPrimaryAggressor, "setStateTo: ATTACK_SHIP"); 
        ENTER = ("setSpeedTo: 0.0", performIdle); 
        EXIT = (); 
        "HOLD_FULL" = ("setStateTo: EXIT_SYSTEM"); 
        "GROUP_ATTACK_TARGET" = (setTargetToFoundTarget, "setStateTo: ATTACK_SHIP"); 
        "INCOMING_MISSILE" = (fightOrFleeMissile, "setStateTo: FLEE"); 
        "TARGET_FOUND" = (setTargetToFoundTarget, "setStateTo: LOOT"); 
        "NOTHING_FOUND" = ("setStateTo: CONSIDER_DOCKING"); 
		"ENTER WORMHOLE" = ("setStateTo: ENTER_WORMHOLE");
        UPDATE = (scanForLoot, "pauseAI: 5.0"); 
    }; 
    "EXIT_SYSTEM" = {
		ENTER = ();
		EXIT = ();
		UPDATE = (performHyperSpaceExit);
		"WITCHSPACE OKAY" = (wormholeEscorts, wormholeGroup);
		"WITCHSPACE BLOCKED" = (setTargetToFoundTarget, setDestinationWithinTarget, "setDesiredRangeTo: 10000.0", performFlyToRangeFromDestination);
		"WITCHSPACE UNAVAILABLE" = ("setStateTo: DOCK_WITH_STATION");
	}; 

Without knowing precisely what goes on... this looks like that it could trigger the entire pirate group to hyperspace out.. or head for the station... once the first target has been destroyed, if the response is "HOLD_FULL".. when the cargo hold is checked for the NPC pirate ASP

[Cmdr James]

a low tech level fuel scoop would presumably be able to be mounted on a high tech ASP...

Tech has nothing to do with it, would you be surprised if a high tech Lamborghini didnt have a tow bar allowing "fitting" of a low tech caravan?

I agree that there are two problems:

1) a player cannot easily discover what is fittable to a ship.
2) the pirate AI is not very good for pirates without scoops or hold. I think there might be a case here for a different AI for fighters working with something like a python.

[Frame]

a low tech level fuel scoop would presumably be able to be mounted on a high tech ASP...

Tech has nothing to do with it, would you be surprised if a high tech Lamborghini didnt have a tow bar allowing "fitting" of a low tech caravan?

No, but I'm pretty sure I could attach one if I wanted too (me and the welding machines at work), and make it through inspection what it would have to do here, if I did..

While I'm unaware what is a sports "spaceship" is, I cannot be presumed to make an educated guess to what can be attached to these, and I cannot ask the dealer about the compatibility while in-game.

so maybe a nice new screen that brings up the ship stats, listing the compatibilities... would be cool..

Cheers Frame

[Eric Walch]

IAnd also a real problem:

PirateAI.plist

"HOLD_FULL"

When no hold is existent

Without knowing precisely what goes on... this looks like that it could trigger the entire pirate group to hyperspace out.. or head for the station...

It looks that way, but it does not happen because the "HOLD_FULL" is only generated then the hold is full after a successful scoop. Or when queried with the command: checkForFullHold
Still with the old code it was a difficult to write correct AI for ships that have no cargo bay. Therefor, since 1.73, the code will also return "NO_CARGO_BAY" for ships without bay. See 1.73 version of pirateAI :

Code: Select all

    "CHECK_CARGO" = {
        ENTER = ("setSpeedTo: 0.0", performIdle, checkForFullHold); 
        ATTACKED = (setTargetToPrimaryAggressor, "setStateTo: ATTACK_SHIP"); 
        "ATTACKED_BY_CLOAKED" = ("setStateTo: FLEE_FOR_CLOAKED"); 
        "HOLD_FULL" = ("setStateTo: CONSIDER_LEAVING"); 
        "HOLD_NOT_FULL" = ("setStateTo: COLLECT_LOOT"); 
        "NO_CARGO_BAY" = ("setStateTo: CONSIDER_DOCKING"); 
        "GROUP_ATTACK_TARGET" = (setTargetToFoundTarget, "setStateTo: ATTACK_SHIP"); 
        "INCOMING_MISSILE" = (fightOrFleeMissile, "setStateTo: FLEE"); 
		"ENTER WORMHOLE" = ("setStateTo: ENTER_WORMHOLE");
	}; 

"setStateTo: CONSIDER_DOCKING" looks a bit strange, but it only considers docking when the ship has a mother station. (e.g. when originally launched from a pirate cove or other station). In all other cases the pirate starts "lurking". But I agree that a pirate without hold only makes sense when operating in a group that contains members that do have a cargo bay.

[Frame]

Thanks Eric ...

Apparently I had an old AI.plist open in my editor, along with 32 other files.
I see the cargo hold checks now.

[Hoopy]

Chopped Cobra seems to be just the thing. A tiny smidge slower than the Asp (0.38 vs 0.4) but goes from 1 to 3 missiles slots and 0 to 33 (when extended) tonnes of cargo. Plus it's cheaper

I've deliberately avoided getting many OXP ships as they can be over-powered but this one seems to be basically like an Asp as in Frontier etc so I'm more than happy. Looks nice too!

Thanks again

[Commander McLane]

This thread seems an odd choice for posting something about a Chopped Cobra.

Firstly, it's about a totally different ship (and for a very specific issue with that ship), and secondly, it was dead for almost three years.

We don't condemn thread necromancy as such, but at least the new post should have some relevance for the resurrected thread. Resurrecting a dead thread solely for the purpose of derailing it seems a little silly even for our standards.

[Diziet Sma]

This thread seems an odd choice for posting something about a Chopped Cobra.

Firstly, it's about a totally different ship (and for a very specific issue with that ship), and secondly, it was dead for almost three years.

We don't condemn thread necromancy as such, but at least the new post should have some relevance for the resurrected thread. Resurrecting a dead thread solely for the purpose of derailing it seems a little silly even for our standards.

If you read the few posts after this one, you'll see that it's very relevant indeed..