Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > Software Solutions

Software Solutions Discussions on Traveller related software.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 4th, 2020, 06:50 PM
Matt123 Matt123 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 1,148
Gallery : 0
Visit Matt123's Blog
Matt123 Citizen+Matt123 Citizen+
Default

On the face of it, that's a bug. Well done, the first bug report in a long time!

It should increase Bk2 fuel if you wanted say 8 weeks Bk2 PP supply or reduce it if you wanted 1 week.

It will be a while before I can fix it, in part because I haven't needed to touch the app for a while. The fix will also involve quite a bit of overdue maintenance as well and I will need a clear weekend or three. It'll be fun tho, looking forward to it :-)
__________________
Online CT Ship Designer
COTI thread for feedback
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old September 4th, 2020, 07:05 PM
vegas's Avatar
vegas vegas is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 717
Gallery : 0
vegas Citizen
Default

Well I am glad I can be a little helpful. I find your tool to be super helpful!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old September 5th, 2020, 09:53 AM
Proneutron Proneutron is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 282
Gallery : 1
Proneutron Citizen
Default

Really well done! Thanks Matt
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old September 6th, 2020, 07:51 PM
vegas's Avatar
vegas vegas is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 717
Gallery : 0
vegas Citizen
Default

Two bug reports for the price of one. (As you can tell I am putting the tool through some use these days...)

For some values of drop tanks, the database craps out and returns the following error:
Quote:
We're sorry, but something went wrong.

If you are the application owner check the logs for more information.

Playing around, I found:
for drop tanks of 1,000 dtons, I got the error if the vessel was <4800 dtons.
for drop tanks of 100,000 dtons, I got the error if the vessel was <110991 dtons.

I can keep searching the space if that helps you, but I thought I'd stop there as that was probably enough to help find the issue? It was kind of tedious to find the error points manually...

Anyway, weird, huh?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old September 8th, 2020, 04:21 AM
Matt123 Matt123 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 1,148
Gallery : 0
Visit Matt123's Blog
Matt123 Citizen+Matt123 Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
Anyway, weird, huh?
Very odd, those two points don't relate to anything rules related. That's enough data points though to figure it out :-)

Cheers!
__________________
Online CT Ship Designer
COTI thread for feedback
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old September 14th, 2020, 07:11 PM
vegas's Avatar
vegas vegas is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 717
Gallery : 0
vegas Citizen
Default

Two more reports: the first is not a quality report, and I apologize for that. I will keep investigating.

1) (my intuition is this might be related to drop tank issue above) I like to design liners without any jump fuel at all and get all the fuel from drop tanks. Periodically when I do that, I get the "We're sorry, but something went wrong" error, but not always. I will keep trying to figure out what order of operations I can go through to get the app to accept or reject 0 parsecs of jump fuel, but I don't yet know what does the trick. (It is possible this is exactly the same bug as the drop tank issue. I can't confirm either way until I figure out how to make it happen.)

Obviously my feature request would be that 0 parsecs should be aok for a design and not rejected if that is what is happening.

2) in the payload section, only the prepopulated "cargo" line is properly accounting for fractional dtons. All other lines are retaining the fractional dtons in the "quantity" field when input, but drop the decimal portion in the tonnage calculation. This is a bigger deal for small craft design than ship design, but the same result occurs for both designers.

Since fractions of dtons is a thing, it would be nice to be able to use them especially for small craft. The current function of accepting the decimal input, but dropping (not even rounding!) them for the calculation will allow the unwary to design an impossible craft. The work around is to sum up all fractions and add them into the cargo line, and note what that tonnage really represents.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old September 14th, 2020, 10:08 PM
AnotherDilbert AnotherDilbert is online now
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 2,154
Gallery : 0
AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+
Default

If we are getting petty:

Hull cost not correct. Example a custom 200 Dton hull with configuration 6 (streamlined) and scoops is calculated to MCr 20. It should be MCr 22 according to LBB2 or MCr 16.2 according to LBB5.


Not allowing mixing standard and custom drives is, as far as I can see, a house rule.


Fuel is not optional. You must have a full load (or more) of fuel according to the rules. No warning for insufficient fuel is given.

Demountable or Collapsible tanks not available.


Turret allocation of batteries is incorrect:

Two batteries correctly allocated to one dual turret. Exactly one hardpoint should be free, not 1.17.


Two such turrets incorrectly calculated, should be 4 Dton total. No hardpoint should be free.


This combination should not be possible, no warning given. Two double turrets plus an extra sandcaster not allowed.


The mixed Fusion+Sand turret incorrectly calculated, should be 2 Dton, not 3 Dton.


With more than 10 turrets, no mixed turrets allowed. The Fusion and Sandcaster takes one turret each. No hardpoints should be free.


Any type of spinal of the current TL or less should be selectable, not just of the max TL.


Empty bay not possible to allocate.


Cost of bays not calculated, MCr 1 for 100 Dton bay and MCr 0.5 for 50 Dton bay.


Gunnery crew not correctly allocated.
Small ship with two mixed turrets gets no gunners.
1000 Dton ship with 10 turrets (see above) gets 11 gunners, should be 10.
1100 Dton ship with the same 10 turrets gets 12 gunners, should be 15.

LBB5 crew not correctly calculated (1100 Dton ship):

The Command section should have 7 officers + 50% ratings = 10 or 11 personnel.
Security troops are optional, should be adjustable.
Stewards and medics are not needed in addition to the service crew, using both LBB5 and LBB2 requirements.


Frozen Watch drop down not sufficient, if you want frozen watches to survive a meson hit you generally want more frozen watches, one or three is not sufficient. Just having one frozen watch is not very useful.


Stateroom allocation incorrect, each crew section head should get a separate stateroom (200 Dton ship), not all officers:



Launch tube input not sufficient: You might want several sizes of launch tubes, say, one for small fighters and one for larger craft.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old September 15th, 2020, 12:16 AM
Matt123 Matt123 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 1,148
Gallery : 0
Visit Matt123's Blog
Matt123 Citizen+Matt123 Citizen+
Default

lol, nothing petty about it. Bug reports are useful, although I'm somewhat surprised by the volume here :-)

Will take a look and reply in detail. It won't be fast though, I'm flat out at the moment.

Cheers
Matt
__________________
Online CT Ship Designer
COTI thread for feedback
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old September 15th, 2020, 12:39 AM
vegas's Avatar
vegas vegas is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 717
Gallery : 0
vegas Citizen
Default

@AD and Matt,

Several of those are "feature requests" rather than "bugs".

The hardpoint calcs ARE wonky at times, especially with mixed turrets. I usually just watch those myself (plus I have my own house rules that limits them below RAW.)

Quote:
Fuel is not optional. You must have a full load (or more) of fuel according to the rules. No warning for insufficient fuel is given.
Ah, don't be a rules lawyer AD. Not even the canonical xboat follows that. But if you want a full fuel load, nothin's stopping you from designing it in.

Quote:
Demountable or Collapsible tanks not available.
They are in the Payload section
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old September 15th, 2020, 07:35 AM
AnotherDilbert AnotherDilbert is online now
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 2,154
Gallery : 0
AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
Not even the canonical xboat follows that.
The X-boat has a full load of fuel for its drives, it just doesn't have a power plant, which might have been possible under LBB2'77.



Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
They are in the Payload section
So, it is, thanks.

That works well for Collapsible tanks, but the Demountable tanks are not counted towards available fuel or the size of the purification plant.


Note that Exterior Demountable tanks are incorrectly deducted from interior space and does not affect drive performance. Exterior tanks should be treated like retained drop tanks.


Any size drop tanks leads to "We're sorry, but something went wrong." when using a standard LBB2 jump drive.


Fuel purification plant not sized for retained drop tanks or demountable tanks.

Fuel purification plant should be dimensioned for all fuel carried, or at least a full load of fuel for the drives, regardless of if drop tanks are retained or not.

See rest of ship below. The purifier should be dimensioned for 1260 Dt fuel and be 18.9 Dt.


Agility calculation incorrect with drop tanks and standard drives (here a 1800 Dt ship with 1200 Dt tanks):

The computer should limit agility to 1 below PPn, so 3 with tanks and 5 w/o tanks.

Reasonably the PP should not produce more EPs just because a drop tanks is added. The PP should produce 108 EP (Hull 1800 Dt PPn 6 / 100), not 120 EP (Hull + tanks 3000 Dt PPn 4 / 100), and definitely not 180 EP (Hull + tanks 3000 Dt PPn 6 / 100).


Incorrect calculation of jump capability shown in drop tanks section. In the above example the ship has a Computer 4, it is not capable of Jump-6, even if the tanks are dropped.


Incorrect warning of invalid design: A ship with a jump drive 6 doesn't need a computer 6, it just can't achieve jump 6 without it. It is completely correct by the rules to have a smaller computer and hence jump capability.

It might be stupid, but it is correct. In this case it makes sense when a permanent drop tanks or exterior demountable tanks are added.


Inconsistent handling of standard and custom drives. Standard drives are rated to hull only, custom drives are rated to hull + drop tanks (but not exterior demountable tanks). See agility calculation above for an example.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CT Only: Favorite Classic Traveller ship(s) Murph Classic Traveller 104 October 12th, 2017 04:41 PM
Free-Form Ship Builder robject Traveller 5 2 July 16th, 2014 01:57 AM
My dream ship builder dalthor Traveller 5 2 April 3rd, 2014 03:04 PM
Ship sizes for some classic ships ... daryen The Fleet 28 July 7th, 2011 12:44 AM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.