Home » PLAYER'S HQ 1.13 » JA2 Complete Mods & Sequels » UC/DL 1.13 & AFS » UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to 2010/10/16)
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250810] Sat, 01 May 2010 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Wil, sent you an email a couple of hours ago. Eagerly awaiting your reply ...

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250811] Sat, 01 May 2010 20:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Right, it has been sent.

Now aside from the SVD-S error, how is everyone finding the new scope penalties?


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250812] Sat, 01 May 2010 20:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Got the file. Thanks!

Can't really say re: scopes, yet, as the only weapons/scopes I've found are SVDs with the PSO-1s.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250813] Sat, 01 May 2010 20:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
The PSO-1 and 4x Battlescope both have the new AP penalties, though as I am using 4x as the margins of "sniper" scope territory, they are relatively mild compared to the two scopes with approximately 10x magnification.

EDIT: oh by the way, you will be needing to start a new game for the .ini to take effect.

[Updated on: Sat, 01 May 2010 20:49] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250814] Sat, 01 May 2010 20:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Quote:
oh by the way, you will be needing to start a new game for the .ini to take effect.
Frak.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250826] Sat, 01 May 2010 22:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Has anyone checked with the population of Calisto for hints on the pilot's location? I am not sure if I missed it, or whether there is something wrong here, but in my current test game, nobody is bothering to mention which farm Goose is located in.

EDIT: also is anyone noticing that the current JA2.exe (SVN) seems to be locking/crashing a lot when trying to exit the game?

EDIT2: Expert difficulty level, four days after all sectors of Calisto have been taken (including E13 which is back to non-garrisonable suburb status) and there is finally a small counter attack. My test game is sort of half cheating in that I have 6 IMP mercs; but I haven't used any cheat codes. Will hang around Calisto for a little while longer. Not having the townsfolk tell me where Goose was is a bit annoying, especially since he was in the last farm to be searched.

[Updated on: Sun, 02 May 2010 02:33] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250836] Sun, 02 May 2010 01:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
I have not had any crashes at all when exiting the game using the latest SVN .exe.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250854] Sun, 02 May 2010 04:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Ok, I think I have too much stuff in my old install of JA2. Another clean install later and yeah, the program is shutting down fine. Day five since I took Calisto, and so far only one small attack. Two days since NE SAM was taken and not even a patrol nearby. I should up the security around the SAM sites for the next release...

ShadoWarrior, if you haven't started a new game yet, and since I know you are not afraid of editing the .ini you may want to increase QUEEN_POOL_INCREMENT_PER_DIFFICULTY_LEVEL = 20 to 30 or 40. In v20100423 it was set to 60.

EDIT: taking advantage of the fact I have a reasonably clean SVN install of 1.13 I checked the default .ini; looks like they have it set to 60 as well.

[Updated on: Sun, 02 May 2010 05:00] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251008] Thu, 06 May 2010 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Grunty's text on the AIM page states that he's good with heavy weapons and is currently acting as a trainer. Yet his personnel file lists his skills as heavy weapons and night ops. Shouldn't he have training skill instead of night ops?

I've edited my prof.dat (and the merc XML file, which isn't being used by UC) and used a hex editor to edit my saved game to adjust this.

[Updated on: Fri, 07 May 2010 23:40] by Moderator


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251144] Sat, 08 May 2010 17:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Toneone

 
Messages:377
Registered:October 2008
Location: Germany
But you have to take into account, that Grunty is the ONLY Merc with Night Ops AND heavy weps, AFAIK.
Im pretty sure ive never even seen an added merc/rpc witht this combination, and Grunty has a permanent place on my roster in ANY Ja game so far.


@Wil

Very good progress here, so it seems.
Thumbs up man,
is the current beta download already including the listed fixes and changes?
Would like to try it again if its up to date.

regards

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251146] Sat, 08 May 2010 19:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Sorry, sidetracked by real life.

In the original Urban Chaos prof.dat, Grunty has Night Ops and Heavy traits. Not sure if there was an intention to make him a trainer as per the continuing back story for A.I.M.

ShadoWarrior, how are you finding the Queen's force levels? Did you adjust QUEEN_POOL_INCREMENT_PER_DIFFICULTY_LEVEL back up from 20? So far I am thinking something has changed in the .exe which accounts for the constant "Drassen Counter attack" size forces, and cutting back the Queen's forces should balance things back to the way they were.

EDIT: forgot to mention, ran into some problems with UCC, for some reason I cannot seem to get a "passage" setup along the south edge of Balime. I think it was just me trying to do too much at once so when I have a moment I'll try again. My plan to reduce the number of maps so far has increased the number. I am not sure about the game's lategame stability with the current .exe; perhaps it won't be necessary to cut back on maps... well one can hope.

EDIT2: Hazmat, the current release does not have the updated garrisons. Shadowarrior has a RC where QUEEN_POOL_INCREMENT_PER_DIFFICULTY_LEVEL = 20, but I am thinking this cut was too drastic (default is 60). I hope to be releasing a patch soon.

[Updated on: Sat, 08 May 2010 19:15] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251152] Sat, 08 May 2010 20:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Toneone

 
Messages:377
Registered:October 2008
Location: Germany
@Wil

So, im guessing this means players encountered too much garrision troops eh?
Well i dont mind killing lots of guys, but then again i dont know the exact numbers.
Ive not been following the thread for a long time, after i encountered serious crashes in the hybrid and decided to step back for now and jump back in later.

So here i am and im anxious to play with all the cool toys you packed, especially after ive seen the fix list.

Ill report after some playing

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251153] Sat, 08 May 2010 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
I have several other mercs, including my IMP, with night ops. One can never have too many trainers.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251155] Sat, 08 May 2010 20:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Quote:
ShadoWarrior, how are you finding the Queen's force levels? Did you adjust QUEEN_POOL_INCREMENT_PER_DIFFICULTY_LEVEL back up from 20? So far I am thinking something has changed in the .exe which accounts for the constant "Drassen Counter attack" size forces, and cutting back the Queen's forces should balance things back to the way they were.
I started my current game before you advised to reset the number from 20 to 60. But I don't think that particular number makes all that much difference, though I could be wrong. However, the changes you made in the patch you sent me fixed the issue with the constant heavy attacks. Now I only get attacked on average once every 24-36 hours, and with an average of only 14-20 soldiers, instead of always 20. The eastern SAM site had 20, same as before your patch, so everything seems okay.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251157] Sat, 08 May 2010 20:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
I'm only playing at experienced, so that's probably why I am not seeing too much in the way of counter attacks. Raising the pool from 20 to 30 shouldn't cause too steep of an increase.

Hazmat - to be honest, v20100423 did not fix anything crash related, though someone did note that a bug in the main 1.13 has been corrected which may increase stability. My current personal "testing" is seeing if this is the case.

The included NAS mini-mod, while something that everyone should take a look at so as to help Warmsteel with testing, has stability issues related to the code base it is based on. That being said, there is a non-crashing bug, introduced in the post HAM 3.6 code base related to civilian hints (though the last version of HAM 3.6 I could find, does not have this bug).

Speaking of v20100423, I've identified a bug with the underslung grenade launchers. In my bid to penalize attachments (AP modifier to make firing and draw higher) I forgot that the launcher itself has a firing cost. Therefore you all might be finding that the underslungs have an awfully high firing cost. This will be corrected in the patch which should be released soon.



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251161] Sat, 08 May 2010 21:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
I always play at 'expert', which doubles the number of attacks as compared to 'experienced'. (JA2 has always been too easy, IMO, at anything less than 'expert'.) But prior to patch RC 20100501 it was far worse than 'insane'. The attack frequency was so incessantly tedious as to border on being no fun.

I haven't found any underslung GLs so I haven't noticed anything amiss with them.

The current .exe has very serious memory leaks in the save/reload code. The fixes that were made in that area back circa '07 have been undone by someone since then. Whomever that is should be beaten over the head with a duffel bag full of wet dirty laundry for destabilizing working code.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251509] Thu, 13 May 2010 20:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
I've just made a rather... Startling discovery.

Take an AMD-65M (Normally a rather sub-par weapon). Throw on a basic scope, say the entry-level PO 3.5 scope (Gives a bit of to-hit bonus, aimbonus and reduces shot-AP). Stick on a Korsak laser, for a nice bit of to-hit bonus inside 25 squares. For giggles, add in a bipod, for another 10 to-hit bonus.

Now, the icing on the cake (And something I'm sure isn't intended): Add on an extended stock. This gives another hefty chunk of to-hit bonus AND reduces ahot-AP fairly massively.

Now you've got an assault rifle with a to-hit bonus of 40+, and a single-shot AP cost of 2-3, depending on your merc's APs. And yes, you read that right. That's 2-3, NOT 23.

Methinks the AMD-65M could use either removing the folding stock slot, or having it's base stats nerfed to be inline with other rifles that use the system. As is, it's wide open to abuse and exploitation.

I *think* the main problem is that AP-cost percentage increases/decreases are all added together THEN applied to the weapon. So in this case, it'd be the PO scope and the extended stock combining to give a heinous %-reduction of 80%+.
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251515] Thu, 13 May 2010 22:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
AMD-65M w/stock, is a bug. The AMD-65M is supposed to be fixed stock only, essentially an AKM with a built in foregrip. Something else I need to add to the patch...


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251516] Thu, 13 May 2010 22:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
Oh, forgot to mention.. I'm using the NAS minimod. I don't know if that's relevant or not.
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251522] Fri, 14 May 2010 00:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Any hint, Wil, as to when you'll put out the next patch? And will it include the SVN changes through 1222?

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251550] Fri, 14 May 2010 17:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
I just have one or two more thing to test before I release the patch. ShadoWarrior, the RC patch you have has the essential part that waters down the queen's ability to field recovery attempts. Hopefully tonight or tommorow (10/05/13-14) the patch will be posted on Moddb and esnips.

Examined SVN 1222 this morning and there is nothing in the log concerning the .exe, only a fix to attachments which has no effect on the hybrid as it has its own XML's. I'll give the game a run with the new revision in place just to be sure.

Minty, did the AMD-65M have a folding stock as a default attachment or is it something you scavenged from another weapon? Real work on NAS is suspended till Warmsteel is ready to proceed onto the current code base, but I will remove from the AMD-65M the stock attachment slot.

[Updated on: Fri, 14 May 2010 17:33] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251553] Fri, 14 May 2010 18:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
All the AMDs I've found came without an attached stock, but with the stock-slot available in NAS. I've not been playing OAS since you released the minimod, and I doubt I'll go back to OAS.. It'd be as painful as going back to pre-NIV, or pre-HAM.. Smile

But yeah.. I just scavenged an extended stock off one of the unfeasibly common AK-105s and slapped it in. It wasn't *too* heinous till I thought of adding on the PO scope. Honestly, the scope might be a little OP, as it gives sightrange bonus, aimbonus, allows attachment of a Korsak, AND gives a shoot-AP reduction too. All for what? About $500 or so from Bobby Ray's? The reflex scope doesn't do half of that, yet it costs upwards of $2k..
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251555] Fri, 14 May 2010 18:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
If you are seeing a real shoot-AP reduction then something is wrong. 4x and above scopes are supposed to give a negative shoot-AP reduction. I'll have to check the XML's, but I do not believe the Korsak gives an AP reduction.

4x PSO-1 = 20% increase General/Ready AP
6x PSO-P = 30% increase General/Read AP; -30% Burst/Auto CTH
10x Sniper Scope = 50% increase General/Read AP; -75% Burst/Auto CTH

Minty, can you confirm if it is a negative or positive reduction please, I am not able to test right now.

[Updated on: Fri, 14 May 2010 18:27] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251557] Fri, 14 May 2010 18:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
No, no.. This is the PO 3.5P, or whatever it's called. I've not fired up UC today, but I *think* it gave a 20% reduction in AP costs, or thereabouts. The progression for Russian scopes seems to go Kobra, PO 3.5P, PSO-1, PSO-P.

And the Korsak's working as intended: giving a to-hit bonus inside it's 25-square range, not giving an AP-reduction of any kind.

I know this is a little late in the day, and the system's already nicely established but.. What do you think of the concept of revising the folding stock system, so that all weapons that can take folding stocks have base stats as though the stocks were folded, and only saw accuracy gains, and draw/shoot-AP penalties with the extended/deployed stocks attached? And the folded stock version of the stock would give no bonuses or penalties, and effectively be an easy-access placeholder. Or vice-versa, to match the weapon-graphics.

Don't mind me, it just always struck me as a bit odd that without a stock attached, the weapons are actually *worse* than if they had a folded stock attached.

Just my two pence. And not a criticism, just brainstorming a little is all.

Edit: Just double-checked, and it's the PO 3.5x21P scope. Gives +3 daysight range, 40% FoV-narrow, and -20% Attack-AP modifier.

Humorous sidenote: For giggles, I tried replacing the extended stock with a folded one from another AK-105.. Single-shot APs down to -4 (Yes, that's right. Negative APs to fire), autofire APs down to 4, and readyAPs of 6..

[Updated on: Fri, 14 May 2010 18:51] by Moderator

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251558] Fri, 14 May 2010 18:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
The "penalties" for having no stock of any kind attached are intentional to prevent players from gaming the system by not having a stock to recover the fourth slot. With NAS these penalties will not be needed any longer, but the intention is to keep them as encouragement for players not to loose the "integral" stock item. On NAS becoming mainstream, and baring no new changes to how things work, the folding stock (and other changing attachment) mechanism will be streamlined so as to be almost like a button (see http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=250896#Post250896)

The PO 3.5P is supposed to be the Russian equivalent to the ACOG. Nith NAS I should redo some of the pricing but it and other Russian scopes should remain significantly cheaper than Western equivalents.

[Updated on: Fri, 14 May 2010 18:49] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251560] Fri, 14 May 2010 19:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
That's kinda what I figured, Wil. Like I said, no criticism, and I can see why it was done for OAS reasons. It just jars a little with the NAS system is all. But then, that's one of the joys of transitional Betas. Smile

And yeah.. The "holding-point" attachment slot's got a lot of potential, for storing merge-items and such. One of the reasons I occasionally slip over to Brigade E5 is slowly being eroded. I get to pimp out firearms to unfeasible degrees in JA too now! Very Happy

As to pricing, it only seems out of whack currently because I've not seen an ACOG in UC yet to compare. I'm presuming the stats are almost identical, except the PO allows a Korsak to be attached, and the ACOG allows a reflex ontop?
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251637] Sat, 15 May 2010 20:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
v20100515 now available awaiting authorization on Moddb. Esnips doing some strange things when trying to upload right now, will try again later.

Available from the usual place: http://www.esnips.com/web/ucja2113projectssStuff/
Available from ModDB: http://www.moddb.com/downloads/urban-chaos-113-hybrid-v20100515-patch

Urban Chaos - 1.13 Hybrid v20100515 Patch Read Me

Instructions: Extract contents of archive into main Jagged Alliance 2 v1.13 folder, be sure to overwrite DATA-UC113 and DATA-UC113NAS folders and contents of this archive.

- Reduces QUEEN_POOL_INCREMENT_PER_DIFFICULTY_LEVEL from default of 60 to 30
- Fixed AMD-65M attachments for both regular and NAS
- Fixed AP penalties of having attached underslung grenade launcher affecting AP to fire underslung grenade launcher

EDIT: got esnips working, problem on my side, the patch is available from the same link as the full install of v20100423, still waiting for ModDB however...

EDIT2: patch now available from both links

[Updated on: Sun, 16 May 2010 02:34] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251735] Mon, 17 May 2010 06:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
Just found an error with the Commando LBE upgrades: Unlike the basic-level Commando LBE, they don't give any woodland or desert camo-bonus. In addition to the lack of camo-bonus, the Commando SAW LBE seems to have the wrong size set. It won't fit in any backpack slots, and can only be in stacks of one (1) in sector-inventory. I've not checked, but it seems to have the same itemsize as the jerrycans of gas.

The Commando Holster and Tourist's Beltpack have the same size-issue as the Commando SAW LBE. Additionally, the Commando Holster's pockets don't match it's ingame description: It's got a face-item LBE slot, instead of the stated SMG holster slot.

Just incase you're wondering why my xml-bugreports come up in fits and starts.. I'm testing by actually playing the game, not fiddling with GABBI, infinite cash, and uber-BR settings. Tends to give more real-world results, though I admit it's hardly a comprehensive way of doing it. Smile

[Updated on: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:17] by Moderator

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251751] Mon, 17 May 2010 17:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
LBE's - I'll look into those, but save the fixes for the next major release. I kept putting off updating the Commando LBE descriptions till I had forgotten about them...

Minty, I know you are using NAS, aside from the already expected issues with the old code base (ie. missing garrisons after underground victory bug); how are you finding game stability?


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251752] Mon, 17 May 2010 17:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
Aside from the old codebase issues, stability's absolutely fine, with the default ini you supply. Previously, using a rather heavily-altered ini that allowed reinforcements and such.. Not quite so stable.

Also, I've been conciously taking out whole towns before venturing into the subway for that town, so I couldn't say whether the NAS alpha-codebase has the missing garrisons bug or not.

I've had the odd crash here and there, and a few lockups whilst sorting/selling sector inventory. Strangely, the lockups haven't been on-click.. I've often finished what I was doing, and *about* to click to close down the inv-overlay and it's crashed. Maybe connected is that it sometimes takes a good few seconds of HD-churn to close the sector inv down. Of course, that may be related to the NAS codebase rather than a UC-specific issue.

As for the LBEs and other XML-stuff.. I tend to report the errors here, then fix them in my local files. Would it be of help to send or post my fixes as I do them? Or would that be a case of "too many cooks"? Wink
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251756] Mon, 17 May 2010 17:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
When I get around to it, Commando LBE is going to be revamped again. I am finding the initial Commando Vest LBE is too generous with pockets. I am thinking halving the number of pockets for the basic Vest LBE. Apply a second Commando Upgrade (to the LBE only) to get the current number of pockets. Also, I am thinking of adding a new "pocket" to give the player an added place to hang a gas mask.


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251769] Mon, 17 May 2010 21:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lockie

 
Messages:3840
Registered:February 2006
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Also, I am thinking of adding a new "pocket" to give the player an added place to hang a gas mask.


Good idea , long overdue !


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251911] Thu, 20 May 2010 02:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
I've found a few issues with Bobby Ray's that I'm not sure whether are unique to UC113 or endemic to the generic 113:

1. The LAR Grizzly .45 WM is listed as having zero weight.
2. The Jati-matic GG-95 PDW is listed as weighing only 1.70kg. Is this correct? Seems light.
3. The AR-57 upper receiver is listed three times in a row.
4. The Beretta Storm CX is listed three times in a row.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251914] Thu, 20 May 2010 02:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
The Beretta CX Storm's correct. Check the default attachments and calibres. Comes in .40 and .45, with a small scope or reflex sight as default attachments. Might want to alter the BR descriptions to show that properly for clarity though.

Possibly the same for the AR57, though I've not got quite that far yet. Check the default attachments, and make sure they're not the suppressed/cqb/ar-barrels too.
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251933] Thu, 20 May 2010 18:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2046
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
AR-57 sounds right as there are three barrel lengths for it. One for 6" with silencer, one 11" and one 16".


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251979] Fri, 21 May 2010 15:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Next version will not be savegame compatible, but at the same time it won't be ready for a some weeks.

- Added another missing garrison (this broke save game compatibility), E9
- Found that several possible NIV "sizes" were not in use, so I used them for various sizes of externally clipped items. The "Belt Clip" slot now can take unused face items.

EDIT:
I took a look at BR's inventory and I can see why there is confusion about the CX Storm. I'll adjust the labling to reflect the particular example's chambering. The AR57 on the otherhand should have a different graphic and name to differentiate between the Short Barrel, Full size and suppressed versions. Is anyone using the suppressed AR57? I ask this because the other two versions can take a pistol suppressor, and with NAS the suppressed version no longer has the benefit of freeing an attachment slot. The only benefit to using it is size at this point.

[Updated on: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:50] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251983] Fri, 21 May 2010 17:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2046
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
The 11" and 16" shouldn't be able to fit suppressor's, they don't have threaded barrels to my knowledge. If they do then they shouldn't be anywhere near as effective as the 6" suppressed version, but that should also have a pretty poor range, not too much greater than a pistol/smg with a bit more punch Smile


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251998] Fri, 21 May 2010 23:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Good point Kaerar, I was thinking of removing sound suppressor capability from the AR57's as well, leaving only the built in suppressor version.

I've decided to clean out the "pocketed armour" left in UC-113. As I've abandoned the OIV version sometime ago, and will not be implementing it if/when NAS is mainstream, best to remove it now so people have a chance to get used to the loss of the 8 extra attachment slots.


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #252027] Sat, 22 May 2010 20:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
A couple of more issues:

1. The belt pack appears to be unrepairable. At least the one Gasket has is.

2. Extended stocks seem to do weird things with APs. I found an AN-94 and its normal AP costs are 33/34/49. Adding an extended stock reduces the costs to an astonishingly low 8/9/16! The RPK-74 MG without an extended stock has an autofire cost of 53. With an extended stock it drops to 17. This pattern doesn't apply to all weapons. Just some. Most weapons that already come with an extended stock have "reasonable" AP costs (in line with weapons that have fixed stocks).

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #252054] Sun, 23 May 2010 03:13 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
ShadoWarrior, those are oversights from when I thought the AN-94 and RPK-74 should have a folding stock. I neglected to remove the possibility of attachment when I cleared the default attachment. In reality the AN-94 cannot eject casings properly with the stock folded so the in-game folding stock was removed from it, though for storage purposes, I think I left it sized so that it can fit into a space one size smaller than a fixed stock equivalent. I'm still on the fence for the RPK-74, should it or shouldn't it have a folding stock?

I'll look into the Belt Pack later.

EDIT: with the folding stock system, the folding stock is not really meant to be an option. If it is there by default, then it has one and always should have one of the two choices of stocks attached. Cases where a gun can take a stock attachemnt, but does not have one attached by default are errors.

EDIT 2 (Additional Update): incresed damage for 7.62x25mm TT round, this one has always seemed a bit underpowered in the Hybrid, and if I'm remembering correctly, the original Urban Chaos' Tokarev TT had higher damage than than in-game 9x18mm and 9x19mm pistols.

EDIT3 (Testing): Rather dissapointed with stability with the combination of the current releases of both the Hybrid and SVN, I am seeing quite a few random crashes now and for the last two days of testing, though nothing chronic/repeatable yet. Day 51; 100/100 progress; Atremo, Calisto, Port Kip, Sheraton, Gotham and all three (non-Capital) SAM sites taken and garrisoned. Drop-all enabled to check item progress, but I am emptying out the inventory in most sectors after combat (ALT key to sell off). Placement of mercs for combat seems to be a problem, as is other forms of switching to tactical view. Both causing the game to lock frequently, though thankfully Windows 7 Task Manager has so far remained responsive.

[Updated on: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:16] by Moderator



Previous Topic: UC-1.13 Hybrid
Next Topic: UC-1.13/DL-1.13/AFS Discussion 2 (2010/10/29 to 2011/04/18)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Apr 07 02:18:09 EEST 2020

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02288 seconds