Martin Levac

Thanks. I've used that mod for a long time, then it broke, fixed, broke, etc. Engagement range is the only reason I used it. If I knew what to modify in the files, that'd be best for me.

I want to increase the engagement range (from the player ship) of miners/salvagers. Is it possible and how do I do that? I don't do LUA, so I guess I'm asking somebody else do it if it's more complicated than just changing a value somewhere in the files. Also, is it possible to make armed fighters do burst fire? This one is a request for a mod proper. I'm thinking either keep the turret's property when it's got burst fire, or add an option for burst fire when building a new fighter. Also maintain DPS just for balance. Thanks in advance.

I understand that it was only a suggestion to bypass the whole dock then relaunch thing. If the Miners and salvagers ignore combat, they will keep on keepin' on while the fighters do the fighting. Like I said just a suggestion. - Surprise! I use the mod all the time and I've seen the behavior you described, even in vanilla game but I haven't played vanilla since I found this mod so I can't be sure if it's changed for vanilla. If I understand correctly, the mod script checks the blueprint to figure out what type of squad it is and what orders apply to it. It doesn't look at the fighters individually. So if you got a combat fighter blueprint for a mixed squad of combat/salvagers/miners, the combat orders will apply to all fighters in the squad regardless of fighter type. If you didn't set a blueprint for that squad, I guess the mod script looks at the first fighter in the squad or maybe the squad is considered combat by default or something, the mod author would have to explain. If it's a mixed squad with a combat blueprint, the salvagers/miners in that squad will not salvage or mine, they'll shoot ships. This is actually useful if you got salvagers in a combat squad cuz they do tons of damage to hull. Not so much with miners. Of course, it's totally useless to put salvagers or combat fighters in a miner squad cuz you get no resource from them. There's only one kind of target where it's useful to put miners and salvagers and combat fighters in the same squad and it's the xsotan breeders cuz it's part asteroid and part ship, but if I'm not mistaken this mod doesn't have any function to make this work and send out a fighter squad to attack those things. You gotta shoot them with your main ship or use AI-captained ships or whatever. I use only blueprints and build the squads from scratch so they're all dedicated, never mixed squads, that's the easiest solution to the problem you described. Oh yeah I forgot. If you use this mod, don't use the vanilla orders next to the squad icons on the left. Use only the mod icon/menu that comes with the mod. I don't know if using vanilla orders can mess things up cuz I've never used vanilla orders with the mod installed, just saying maybe it's safer that way.

0.15.1 changes turretfactory.lua significantly with the ability to set independent targeting, and adjusts DPS accordingly with various functions that weren't there before. I want to use custom seed with this new change. What specific changes do I need to do to make it work with the new .lua?

See this thread for more info on turretfactory.lua parameters: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,2335.0.html Quick and dirty edit below just for the OP. In turretfactory.lua, for the mining laser, change this line: {name = "Laser Compressor", amount = 5, investable = 6, minimum = 1, weaponStat = "damage", } to this: {name = "Laser Compressor", amount = 5, investable = 6, minimum = 1, weaponStat = "damage", investFactor = 100.0, } and change this line: {name = "Laser Modulator", amount = 2, investable = 4, minimum = 0, weaponStat = "stoneEfficiency", investFactor = 0.075, changeType = StatChanges.Flat } to this: {name = "Laser Modulator", amount = 2, investable = 4, minimum = 0, weaponStat = "stoneEfficiency", investFactor = 100.0, changeType = StatChanges.Flat } I just tested the above and it works fine. See where it says "investFactor"? You could try higher than 100.0 but that's up to you. You may have to hunt a bit for a good turret factory but when you got one, you can make mining lasers with uber dps and efficiency. For even easier mining, see this thread to get independent targeting on all turrets: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1120.0.html Also see this thread to be able to change the seed to get different turrets from the same factory: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1776.0.html Finally, see this thread to get the commands package so you can spawn the goods required to make turrets, without having to go all over the map to get the stuff: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,830.0.html

Did crew workforce requirement change? Officer workforce requirements seem to be based on workforce requirements, not actual crew count. Here's the 3 columns for crew, produced workforce, required workforce, from engineer down to pilot. Crew 9 12 6 28 20 total 75 Produced workforce 21.5 30 15 60 20 -- total 146.5 Required workforce 15 30 15 59 9 -- total 128 Now the officers, from sergeants down to commanders. Crew 6 5 1 Produced workforce 13 5 1 Required workforce 12 3 1 Sergeants workforce requirement is 12, but I have 75 crew (so, sergeants workforce req should be 7, or used to be). Lieutenants workforce is 3, but I have 6 sergeants (so, lieutenants workforce req should be 1, or used to be). Commanders workforce requirement is 1, but I have 2 lieutenants (so, commanders workforce req should be 0, or used to be). Instead, it seems that officer workforce requirements are now based on crew workforce requirements for sergeants calculation, and so forth up the chain of officers. So, need 12 sergeants because need 128 crew workforce, need 3 lieutenants workforce because need 12 sergeants workforce, and need 1 commander workforce because need 3 lieutenants workforce.

If it will help. The sides of the nose is tricky, but doable. The trick is to cut all non-existent (i.e. that don't exist in Avorion) angle/edge/corner "blocks" at all their intersections on all 3 axis to end up with only blocks that do exist in Avorion. Doing this will also give you the base square blocks of the exact dimensions required to fit the angles/edges/corners. For example, the larger non-existent corner "block" on the upper-side of the nose. Note how its intersection touching the central part of the nose is almost aligned with the base of the first edge/angle of the upper-central part of the nose (the angle right behind the cockpit, I believe). With the ship sitting on its belly and we're looking down at it, cut vertically width-wise at that intersection. Then, cut vertically length-wise at the forward intersection of that same non-existent corner block. We still have non-existent corner blocks, so we cut once more but horizontally thickness-wise this time at the new intersection created by our first two cuts. Maybe the above is not very clear, but just remember to cut the non-existent block on all three axis - vertically width-wise, vertically length-wise, horizontally thickness-wise. It's possible to end up with pieces that just don't play nice anyways no matter how many times we cut them like that, but it'll get you closer to the shape you want.

That's a really good idea. It would supersede a bunch of other "new blocks, please" suggestions. There's one way it can be done without changing anything about the current build system or existing blocks. For example, I want to make a multi-angle template for a spheroid or something, I'd need to build it up with multiple blocks and angles. With a mesh block, I could do the same, where it would create those multiple blocks and angles automatically (fewest blocks, best fit) depending on the mesh points I set for it, and I'd end up with the same template as in manual build-up. It could have a symmetric/asymmetric toggle, with edges for symmetric and corners for asymmetric. Mesh points could obey size/scale steps for better alignment. In case of blocks that don't have angles or corners, it would build the overall shape with the appropriate size/dimensions of smaller blocks according to size/scale step (fewest blocks, best fit). It could have the option of filling missing edges/corners with a choice of angle/corner type, i.e. armor, glass, stone, etc. Mesh would obey match block toggle for proper fit, by scaling its components accordingly. For additions to a multi-block base to keep proper alignment, it would need a match-template (or match multiple blocks selection) toggle where we set the outer limits (or the blocks) to be matched by current template. Basically we match two mismatched templates together so that their outer faces match for smooth external shape, and we do this by scaling the components of the new template appropriately. In effect, it would not be a new block, but a new method of block assembly and template construction. +1

For the alt-mouse view limitation, it's been requested in suggestions sub-forum already, add your +1 to that thread (forget exactly which, do a search). In the meantime, there's a few tricks you can use. Quickest is to add a holographic block that extends your ship's front so the camera is forced to focus further forward (with the bonus that you can dock from much further away cuz holo blocks can't make contact with anything but still register for docking, then color your holo block to make it invisible), but the problem here is that now the camera acts a little weird cuz its axis is offset from the ship's axis (due to center of mass staying pretty much the same spot) especially for yaw/pitch. Next is what I do, build mostly short, thin and wide, but then I hit the warp gate problem much more quickly cuz the ship won't fit even though it's still pretty small in terms of mass/volume (in fact the camera limitation is the primary reason for most of my ship designs to date). Finally, install turrets close to front upper point to mitigate parallax, but then it's kinda meh not so pretty solution.

I just did a few volume experiments to figure out the slot progression from 9 to 11, so you can have another option besides adding a huge computer core to get 11 slots. Minimum values for max slots ~19.5 mill total volume = 9 slots ~31.5 mill total volume = 10 slots ~41.5 mill total volume = 11 slots Your ship is 38 mill total volume, so total volume alone gives 10 slots. Computer core adds to total volume, so just its volume adds 1 extra slot (from 9 to 10), then the bonus gives 1 extra slot on top of that. The computer core you added is at least 6.5 mill volume. If instead of a computer core (to get 38 mill total volume + computer core bonus) you add other block types to get a total volume of 41.5 mill, you get 11 slots just from total volume. That's an extra ~3.5 mill volume on a 38 mill ship. In practical terms, it means that instead of having a 6.5 mill block that gives 1 extra system slot but nothing else, you could have ~9.5 mill of other block types for various improvements, i.e. generator, shield, gyros, thrusters, engines, inertial dampeners, cargo, armor, etc, and get 11 slots. But if your ship is perfect the way it is at 38 mill volume, then that means the ship design must become a little less perfect. But maybe it's possible to increase total volume by scaling so you wouldn't have to change its design. It doesn't fix the hyperjump recharge problem, but it gives you another option besides adding a computer core to get 11 slots.

Even though I set TdrLevel = 0, I still got a TDR error about 10 minutes ago. I was trying some changes with broadcastinterval and workerthreads in the server.ini file for one of my galaxies, and the error popped up first time I hyperjumped. So I figured the registry key doesn't work. So I checked it again and noticed that there's other keys but they're Dword instead of Qword in spite of my Win7 version being 64bit. Anyways, I changed it to Dword and the error didn't pop up the few times I HJ'ed again in the last few minutes. Dunno, maybe that did it. I did notice that now when I hyperjump, the mouse cursor now appears as an overlay right in the middle of the screen with the "working" cursor, as if to show the app is working, like when we start an app for example. Going to edit first post so people don't go with Qword uselessly.

That's a performance problem due to current lack of code optimization. It's different than a crash-to-desktop due to TDR. Turning off TDR will not fix/prevent performance problems. TDR is not a game feature, it's a Windows feature. Follow the Microsoft link in my previous post for an explanation of TDR.

Ever seen this? Not me. First time in a decade of using Windows 7. Never happened with directx games, of course, because it's an error message for opengl. However, personally I have see a similar error message for directx apps/games, and others with ATI and Intel graphics have reported this and similar error messages, so the problem is not unique to nvidia/opengl. Anyways, found the solution. Links to explain: https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/hardware/drivers/display/timeout-detection-and-recovery http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3007 In these links (and about a thousand other links on the same problem), the proposed solution is to increase the delay (TdrDelay key) from 2 seconds (default) to 8 seconds (or more), with the logic that a longer delay will prevent the error message from showing, and allow the game/app to continue normally. That doesn't actually fix the problem, because the problem is TDR itself, not the game, not the app, not the display driver, not nVidia, not opengl, not the hardware, not a poor performance PC, not the overclocking, not the cooling, not anything else but TDR itself. I tried increasing the delay, didn't work. The correct solution is found in the Microsoft link, but instead of increasing the delay, turn off TDR altogether with the TdrLevel key instead of the TdrDelay key. === begin instructions=== Registry Editor: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\GraphicsDrivers If TdrLevel key does not exist, create it: While GraphicsDrivers is selected, open "Edit" menu and select "new"; DWORD value for 32 bit Windows QWORD value for 64 bit Windows (edit = QWORD doesn't work, use DWORD with 64bit as well) Then name this key: TdrLevel And set its value to: 0 (edit, sometimes people just do exactly what they're told without thinking, so here's a little extra instruction to make sure that doesn't happen) - Close Registry Editor, save changes - THEN Reboot computer. === end instructions === Be aware that it will not prevent a delay due to natural hardware/software limits, but it will prevent TDR from shutting down the game/app so that if for example a game appears to hang for a second or two because of poor computer performance, it will just appear to hang for a second or two, then continue normally, instead of crashing to desktop with an error message. In my case, it doesn't just shut down the game, it also corrupts my graphics drivers so that I end up with constant graphics artifacts, and I have to reboot to make them go away and return things back to normal. At first, I thought I broke my graphics card and would have to buy a new one (cuz I did break one once and it did cause graphics artifacts, but permanently, reboot didn't make them go away), that's the effect of TDR for me, but fortunately I have a brain and sometimes I use it. Well, others with really powerful computers working perfectly, or even doing seemingly simple activities like browsing the web for example, have also reported the same error message. What a brilliant "feature" of modern operating systems, ya? Anyways, if you've seen this error message (while playing Avorion, or doing anything else for that matter), and you try this solution, report back please.

TANSTAAFL Ships presents the next evolutionary stage of multi-plate armor designs - Stan LD Hybrid Widebody (he ate too much, but that's cuz he was doing the bulk phase, brah!). Featuring the popular Dual-Twinned-Stacked-Angled-Armored Weapon Mounts, and the potent Multi-Thruster-Matrix Packs (forward mounted, of course). The DTSAAWM's and the MTMP(FM,OC)'s should give gunners and pilots alike something to look forward to. In excess of 2,500 armor plates, each and every one of them individually QC'ed by qualified technicians and laser-engraved with a unique serial number and installation location ID for easier replacement in case of destruction. Your local shipyard or repair yard should have a record on hand. Currently awaiting a retrofit to add a shield module. XML file provided below as attachment. Stan-LD-Hybrid-W.zip

TANSTAAFL Ships presents Sten's bigger brother - Stan LD Hybrid (he's adopted). Barely tested, almost brand new, not nearly perfect, absolutely average performance, but what a bunch of armor plates, eh? Block count for armor is over 1,500. It should be fun enough as I progress toward Naonite. XML file provided below as attachment. Stan-LD-Hybrid.zip