Issues and Comments about FHost

Here you can find, hints, strategies and other info for VGA Planets, PHost and it's many addon's and utilities.

Moderators: BitMask, Havok

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#46 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:41 pm

I have a comment, OUCH!!!!
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#47 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:58 pm

And we're currently playing v1.23?

DF,
Where were you reading?
Is there an existant Fhost forum/webpage/whatever?
Or is that in a doc/bugfix list?
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Desert-Fox
Posts: 322

Post#48 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:13 pm

B A N E wrote:And we're currently playing v1.23?

DF,
Where were you reading?
Is there an existant Fhost forum/webpage/whatever?
Or is that in a doc/bugfix list?
V1.23 is the latest version and we are using it. The info I posted came from the README.txt file included in the FHOST package.

DF
Suck it up, Cupcake!

User avatar
Havok
Site Admin
Posts: 7557
Contact:

Post#49 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:16 pm

Desert-Fox wrote:I was doing some reading on FHOST and I found this note from MR that I wanted to share in case everybody had not seen it.

The v1.23 release is primarily a fix to that problem, but it also has
another inconsistency fixed:

While fighters needed fuel to be launched for a remote mission, torpedoes
were 'free' to fire. This was particularily nasty when a crystal player
trapped some torp ships in his web-minefields and had his approaching ships
blown up by the otherwise inoperable enemy...

Torp fuel use is configured from the ATM/AFM fuel usage menu in FHConfig.
The fuel consumption logic is the same as with fighters: Ships will always
at least reserve 1kt of neutronium to keep their shields up. If you have
0kt left, then you've got a real problem. ;)


Doesn't this sound familiar to anyone???

Thoughts, comments etc...

DF
Well, we're using that version and it's still got issues. Good eye's DF! You must have had your glasses on :)
Regards,
][avok

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#50 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:22 pm

Havok wrote:Well, we're using that version and it's still got issues. Good eye's DF! You must have had your glasses on :)
Or hadn't started drinking. :P
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#51 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:31 pm

Has anyone made contact with author of FHost yet? If he is still programming and would be willing rework FHost, he might be interested our discussions.

Does anyone know of any other add-on that has been tested like this?
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
Desert-Fox
Posts: 322

Post#52 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:41 pm

Commodore Cherek, IRJTN wrote:Has anyone made contact with author of FHost yet? If he is still programming and would be willing rework FHost, he might be interested our discussions.

Does anyone know of any other add-on that has been tested like this?
From the same document:

I will not answer to user requests like "I think that feature A
is too strong and feature B too weak. Please change FHost."
This is exactly why I made FHost as configurable as possible. There are too
many opinions about the 'perfect' configuration out there.
Furthermore it's not my job to change the code to player's request, but it
it the job of your local host to find a configuration that fits all...

Suggestions, new ideas and bugreports are as welcome as ever.


so maybe he will...

DF
Suck it up, Cupcake!

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#53 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:53 pm

I think the 0kt fuel issue might be considered an bug. He seems to be somewhat aware that there is an issue with it. Maybe his answer for fighters and torpedoes is to set the fuel use to 0kt.
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
Desert-Fox
Posts: 322

Post#54 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:29 pm

I wonder if Bane or ][avok could sim/test increasing the amount of fuel that is needed to power fighters and torps from the default 10 to 50. Might this have an effect? That way we can test to see is it an error in the code or by chance something in the config that needs to be adjusted.

DF
Suck it up, Cupcake!

User avatar
Havok
Site Admin
Posts: 7557
Contact:

Post#55 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:30 pm

Desert-Fox wrote:I wonder if Bane or ][avok could sim/test increasing the amount of fuel that is needed to power fighters and torps from the default 10 to 50. Might this have an effect? That way we can test to see is it an error in the code or by chance something in the config that needs to be adjusted.

DF
Sounds like a plan. We'll give that try with the config.
Regards,
][avok

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#56 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:10 pm

DF,

0,1,10 & 50 fuel requirement sims.

In tests of 10 & 50, same results.

In tests of 0 & 1, combat took place normally as if ships had fuel.

The real drawback to upping the fuel requirement is that it will
make extended campaigns particularly for cloakers (read roms?)
much more difficult.

At 50 fuel rate:
For a DW full launch, 40 fuel for 8 CMs
Up to 60 fuel to launch 100 ftrs to max (120 LY) range

That being the case, I think we should go ahead and drop the
fuel requirement back down to 10.

I suspect if we went with 50, we'd all run out of fuel.
That or have to build a bunch of fuel makers.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#57 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:02 pm

So you are saying that no matter the fuel setting, it's going to be hard for the Tholians to capture ships.
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#58 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:12 pm

Ok, been in YIM with DF and playing with sim and fuel settings.

New discovery.
Havok,
Switch the fuel setting to 13.

That's the cheapest setting where another bug doesn't show up.
If a 0 fuel torper launches torps, if setting is 12 or below, fhost
gives that torper 1 fuel and 1 torp.
13 and above, it doesn't give the torp...still gives the fuel.

50 is the max fuel setting and same results as 13.

Cherek,
Yes, it's going to be tough for crystal with regards to sustaining webs.
BUT.
That 0 fuel ship, gets +1 fuel, does a mission like sweep then loses
it in webdrain and can then be tow captured.

No fhost combat happens (except patrol = which is disabled) if the
ship is 0 fuel.

If ship gets outside of web via sweep, then the ship could fight via
VCR.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#59 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:16 pm

So, that leaves one of two alternatives.

13 fuel setting with Patrol turned off.
or
0 fuel setting with Patrol turned on.

WC2 is working tentatively on the premise of Patrol=Off.

But we should discuss how if we went with 0 fuel + Patrol =On,
how to compensate the crystals within fhconfig/hconfig for perhaps...WC3?

IMO, the ways available would be to improve their combat abilities within
fhost making them a combat race as opposed to a web & steal.

They'd be a web & kill race.

With CM=Webs, that is certainly a plausible scenario
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#60 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:20 pm

If during FHost, the CV/torper gets fuel so that it can launch fighters/CMs, all I need to do is figure out how to get to the CV/torper so it doesn't see me coming and target my ship using FAX/TAX, right or did I miss something somewhere?
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

Return to “Intel”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron