Oolite Bulletins

If you load the shipdata.plist with multiple definition in an old game then will log an error and the whole file will be unparsed.

A solution if you make two packages, one with single mount and another with only a shipdata-overrides.plist with only the changed lines for multiple mounts, then set the min. version of the last to 1.83 and a requirement to the other package in manifest.plist.

Another way if you make two ship variants: a cheaper one with only one mount in the main package, and another with multiple mounts in a new package where set the min. version to 1.83 and the requirement of the main one.

Theta Seven wrote:

So I should create a template ship (as I remember, one can set so that the populator doesn't spawn it, right?), like_ship the basic taurockhopper, and set a new weapon port there... So it will override in 1.83+, but fail and keep the template one in <1.83...

The whole plist file will fail, so if you use a single package only then should put the multiple lines into a shipdata-overrides.plist and keep the whole shipdata.pist compatible with 1.79. Still not the best due to always log an error in the old game about fail to load the overrides file but at least your ship will appear.

Norby, I initially thought the same as you, but that is not what I observed. On my system both 1.82 and 1.85 parse the shipdata without errors.

Ok then probably I saw too much error messages in the past. If no error in the log then templates are enough, just test it well.

Well, I created a test, which works perfectly on the player ship in 1.84:
So this should work in 1.82 too then if it really gets parsed without errors... I need to see how I can install multiple versions and try it myself...
Edit: It's quite late here so I'll only be able to test it tomorrow... Hope it will work - otherwise I'll choose an alternative...

Good news, I was able to install v1.82 too (I have dual boot, so I just installed the old version in windows...), and it worked perfect for the player ship. And since it was like_shipped to the theoretically faulty taurockhopper, it means that it wasn't faulty after all.

So v1.1.0 is out, having a triple forward laser on v1.83+, and a single one in versions below that. Thank you for your help!

Working in 1.80 also. I think the aft weapon could be triple.

Note your ship is capable to hold Separated Lasers due to the distance between mount points is 56m, over the required min. 30m. This mean real multiple lasers where heatup is not multiple if this oxp is also installed.

Even a powerful and costly Plasma Ray is usable well, which need 50m for separation.

Norby wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:53 pm

Working in 1.80 also. I think the aft weapon could be triple.

Well, I think it would be a bit too good then, and I don't know... It just doesn't fit the feeling to put backward-facing mounts to the sides too.

Norby wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:53 pm

Note your ship is capable to hold Separated Lasers due to the distance between mount points is 56m, over the required min. 30m. This mean real multiple lasers where heatup is not multiple if this oxp is also installed.

Even a powerful and costly Plasma Ray is usable well, which need 50m for separation.

Well, the ship's width is 56m, yes, but since the middle mount is on the front, while the side mounts are waay back, the distance between the mounts are actually about 60m, so indeed, it is definitely capable of using these.

I actually have these oxps, do they work automatically, or the ships they work on have to be defined inside the oxps?

Imho trader and multirole ships should be at least as good in defense as in offense. I still think that your ship is costly so if you do not want to change the cost then some more mounts could fit into. Moreover if somebody install Multiple Lasers then this is not an advantage just prevent a disadvantage.

Separation check the smallest distance between all mounts so does not matter which far is the first mount if the other two in wings are closer to each other. Lasers should be automatically replaced to "Triple" variants which make less heat.

Hmm... I still think that a backward-facing triple laser doesn't fit the ship, so then it is indeed expensive - I thought so at the beginning, but there was no reply regarding the 340,000@ price, so I just left it at that - Should I decrease it to something like 260,000?

Theta Seven wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:41 am

Should I decrease it to something like 260,000?

Yes imho.

So then be it.

v1.1.1 released, now for the price of 260,000@.

Thank you Norby and another_commander for your help and suggestions, I added a thanks-to section on the wiki page of the oxp