(Release) Ship Configuration

[Ross154]

Downloading through the manager doesn't work

"Downloaded OXZ does not have the same identifer and version as expected. This might be due to your manifests list being out of date - try updating it." in Latest.log

This maybe in manifest.plist?

identifier = "oolite.oxp.phkb.ShipConfiguation";

[phkb]

identifier = "oolite.oxp.phkb.ShipConfiguation";

Eek! Yes, that would do it.

So, version 0.4.2 is now available, this time with spell-checking on!

[Duggan]

I think this is a great add on , full of potential so thank you for the time and effort that has gone into making it, the only issue I have noticed is that once you have been into it's menu, your HUD and MFD's disappear along with your target reticle...

[phkb]

the only issue I have noticed is that once you have been into it's menu, your HUD and MFD's disappear along with your target reticle...

Oh, I thought I'd fixed that. But obviously not well enough. I've got a new version in the wings so I'll get a fix posted shortly. Thanks for letting me know.

[Edit]Can I ask a favour? Which HUD are you using? Do you use the HUD selector?

[Duggan]

It is an older HUD called the CRR HUD https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.php?t=11502 I do Have the HUD selector installed but only because it remembers MFD preferences when I reload a game ...

[phkb]

One more thing: Can you confirm which version of Ship Config you're using? There was a hiccup with publishing the OXZ on the download manager that was fixed in version 0.4.2, but the fix might have messed up the update process, so there is a chance you're on a version less than 0.4.1 (where I first attempted to fix the HUD issues).

[Duggan]

It is Version v0.4.3 that is removing my HUD, Target Reticle and MFDs

[phkb]

It is Version v0.4.3

Dang it! I was hoping you were going to say 0.4.0.
<sigh> Oh well. Back to the drawing board....

[Edit]OK, version 0.4.4 is now available. In this release:

• The impact of damaged boosters was not being applied correctly. It wasn't making any difference if they were damaged.
• Determination of player's hyperspace destination now considers the presence of the ANA.
• Fixed error when not checking if a timer exists before trying to turn it off.
• Adjusted weight/space settings for boosters.
• Made compatible with "Hyperdrives" OXP.
• Really really fixed the issue with the HUD disappearing after viewing the config screens.

[Astrobe]

I want to like this OXP but the treatment for fuel injectors is just too harsh: all versions use cargo space.

Cargo space is very sensitive for traders because it directly determines the profit one can make in one trip. Fuel injectors is a basic safety device; if you don't have one, most of the times you can't escape. It also helps with overtaking neutral ships on the lane. One simply can't afford not to have them. So "paying" 1 or 2 TC for it feels like extortion.

The other thing I note is that there's apparently no way to convert back equipment space to cargo space. As a result, one can only specialize ship for combat. Some ships allow cargo bay extensions, but it has always felt bizarre to me how one could "magically" free cargo space without any kind of side effect (and why only some ships?).

I believe that offering "mini cargo bay extensions" (something like +1TC of cargo space for 10t of equipment space) would solve those issues.

[phkb]

@Astrobe: Thanks for the feedback! Re: fuel injectors - I can see how this could be a problem for smaller ships with limited space to work with. There's certainly an argument for (say) halving the space requirements for injectors. I'll try this out and see how it feels. Now that I have the option of having a secondary consideration (heat as well as space) I can potentially have more injector options, ones that take less space but generate more heat.

Re: converting equipment space to cargo space is a great idea. I'll try to get that in the next version.

[phkb]

I believe that offering "mini cargo bay extensions" (something like +1TC of cargo space for 10t of equipment space) would solve those issues

Just thinking a bit more about this, I'm not sure about the best implementation. I'm hesitant to create something that allows the player to increase their cargo space over the default maximum for the ship class, as it would potentially discourage the player from ever wanting to update their ships. Coupled with this is the inherent difficulty in expanding the cargo space of ships beyond their default, where startup sequences can result in cargo being lost.

Rather than trying to extend the cargo space, I'm thinking that expanding the equipment space would make more sense, as that value is the one thing I really have control over. Including a 1t, 2t or 5t equipment space extension, each with a weight component, would enable commanders who want to maximize their cargo space the option of having more space to include essential kit. My thinking at the moment is to limit the extensions by mass, so the big freighters (eg Anaconda) don't have access to them, making this an ideal purchase for small and medium traders. Small ships like the Adder would be limited to the 1 or 2t options. Ships could potentially have 2 of these items fitted (eg 1 x 5t and 1 x 2t for a mid-sized ship, or 2 x 2t for a small ship). What do you think?

[Astrobe]

I believe that offering "mini cargo bay extensions" (something like +1TC of cargo space for 10t of equipment space) would solve those issues

Just thinking a bit more about this, I'm not sure about the best implementation. I'm hesitant to create something that allows the player to increase their cargo space over the default maximum for the ship class, as it would potentially discourage the player from ever wanting to update their ships.

Slightly off-topic, but this OXP kind of does it already. If you quickly look at the differences between Cobra I, II, II-XT, III and III-XT for instance, equipment upgrade OXPs kind of blurry the lines and you think twice before buying a new ship, especially when one considers the credits invested in equipment and the credits one loses when selling the current ship (I've already whined about it in "Suggestions"). So when one considers a new ship, it usually belongs to another class.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to suppress most of the traditional equipment upgrades (naval grid, military shields, etc.) to make the ship market more interesting (for instance one could get a Cobra with passenger berth only from the market and/or ship OXP makers could offer many unique variants with sensible parameters according to the fitted equipment). But something tells me it won't happen any time soon.

Coupled with this is the inherent difficulty in expanding the cargo space of ships beyond their default, where startup sequences can result in cargo being lost.

Too bad... If we cannot kill our two birds with that one stone, then maybe it's not worth the complexity. Currently if I want standard injectors I have to downgrade two other equipments to keep my cargo space. I believe that few would want the lesser injectors (even if maybe they aren't that terrible), so I think starting at 1t for standard injectors is good enough.

[phkb]

Well, I've made some changes based on your feedback. I think they're improvements, but let me know what you think. Version 0.5.0 is now available.

• Added equipment space extensions to allow for more equipment without using cargo space, but with weight and cabin temp penalties.
• Adjusted equipment space settings for fuel injectors.
• Turned off some debug messages.
• Toned down colour of storage facility background overlay image.
• Fixed further compatibility issues with Ship Respray.
• Fixed further compatibility issues with Combat Simulator.
• Changed background overlay image during sell negotiations.

[Astrobe]

I noticed that escape pods also use equipment space. I suggest to ignore this equipment because there's already very few advantages to using it already. Compared to restarting from last save, if you eject you have to face repair costs which can be a serious setback because credits play more or less the same role as levels in other RPG games. The advantage though if you don't lose mission progression and kills, which is probably not very significant (unless maybe for Random Hits players?).

The equipment space extensions kind of do the job, but in a very ad hoc way. They are also based on the same "magic" as cargo bay extensions. With the goal of letting people specialize their ship for trading in mind, I suggest the following:

First, make "trader" variants for some equipment.
"trader variants" would use less space but cost more (+maybe some other downsides [1]). In my view, it's a bit more "realistic" that more compact versions equipments are available (at least for someone who remembers the 90ies...). And when you look at it, equipment space extensions are just extra cost and extra fixed downsides for one or more pieces of equipment, which i a way introduces a "blind spot" in the overall balance (and I think the hard part in the long run is finding the right balance).
Aside from equipment space considerations, one can also offer [-50% speed, -50% fuel burn] injectors which could be better at overtaking slow ships on the lane [2]. Shield recharge rate is a stat with which one can play with for shield equipment.

Second, make the prices dependent on the tech level of the system.
Making the prices dependant on the tech level is obviously to allow equipment trading. I find this option interesting because it introduces new trading routes. When you do the math, a cargo slot is worth maybe 25Cr per slot and per trip. It's actually difficult to evaluate; a good trade can yield a 50Cr benefit, so I take half of it as a guesstimate. Making the same amount of money by buying equipment here and selling it there wouldn't be criminal in my opinion [3]. It could also help with making money faster at the beginning, something you tried to address with an other OXP recently.
The other reason for making prices dependant on the tech level is that the OXP is quite complex already from the player perspective, and it's a bit difficult to foresee the effects of downgrading/upgrading a piece of equipment. What I usually do is a quick-save before buying anything, test, and roll back when I'm not pleased with the result (or when I make a mistake). With prices dependant on the tech level, one can buy equipment in a high level system, test it, and resell it at a low level system if one doesn't like the result while covering the money loss (or maybe even make some benefit). It allows players to experiment freely.


[1] extensions and perhaps some pieces of equipment incur cabin temp penalties, but it doesn't appear in the stats overview.
[2] I've played with injector speed multiplier in an experimental OXP and it seemed to me that with smaller multipliers the AI won't use their own injectors to catch up with you, so they give a serious advantage. I have yet to confirm it.
[3] Of course this can be abused - "tech milk runs". It's not worse than standard milk runs, except perhaps that one can restrain oneself with OXPs that manipulate markets to prevent you from doing it too much. The equivalent in our case could be to decrease slightly the service level of the ship each time one installs an equipment.

[Cody]

I noticed that escape pods also use equipment space. I suggest to ignore this equipment because there's already very few advantages to using it.

There are no advantages at all if you're a courier!