Nic Jansma
05/28/14 12:21 AM
68.41.71.3
|
Hi,
I would like to come up with the text for a Sticky Topic in the Designs forums that new posters would be encouraged to use when sharing designs.
I think there could be two parts to this post.
First, are suggested Mech designers that have a text export mode suitable for forum posts. My suggestions would be:
1) MegaMek Lab
2) Solaris Skunkwerks
3) Heavy Metal
Second, would be a list of text templates for mechs, vehicles, etc that designers could enter their data into, regardless of how they designed their vehicle/mech.
Here's Karagin's suggested format for 'Mechs:
Code:
Mass:
Chassis:
Power Plant:
Cruising Speed:
Maximum Speed:
Jump Jets:
Jump Capacity:
Armor:
Armament:
Manufacturer:
Primary Factory:
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System:
Equipment Mass
Internal Structure:
Engine
Walking MP:
Running MP:
Jumping MP:
Heat Sinks:
Gyro:
Cockpit:
Armor Factor:
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head
Center Torso
Center Torso (rear)
R/L Torso
R/L Torso (rear)
R/L Arm
R/L Leg
Weapons & Ammo Location Critical Tonnage
At the end of the day, I would like to take the forums' consensus from this thread and create a Sticky in the Designs forum.
|
ghostrider
05/28/14 05:34 AM
24.30.130.67
|
From what we have seen recently, Megamek seems to leave out some vital information for a quick look over, such as type of engine, turret weight, component weight and things like that.
As for the template, it should put up the armor should have points, weight and type such as normal/ferrous sort of thing.
As unit type should be included in it so we can see it is a vehicle (tracked, wheeled, hover, vtol, mech, surface ship, sub, falling dropship.
The factory, comms, tracking is not really needed since they have no real information for the game. Unless they have finally put in more then just fluff like the garet tracking on the rifleman actually helping anti air.
|
BobTheZombie
05/28/14 01:43 PM
198.45.174.125
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
From what we have seen recently, Megamek seems to leave out some vital information for a quick look over, such as type of engine, turret weight, component weight and things like that.
As for the template, it should put up the armor should have points, weight and type such as normal/ferrous sort of thing.
As unit type should be included in it so we can see it is a vehicle (tracked, wheeled, hover, vtol, mech, surface ship, sub, falling dropship.
The factory, comms, tracking is not really needed since they have no real information for the game. Unless they have finally put in more then just fluff like the garet tracking on the rifleman actually helping anti air.
If certain programs leave out certain info, perhaps we could have something like: MegaMek users be sure to ... "
I agree with the unit type listing being included; the factory, comms, tracking, etc. should be listed on the template but also have a note by them that says "if a value such as factory... ... doesn't apply to the unit, put "N/A" in that space"
Other than that the template looks pretty good.
|
Cray
05/28/14 06:49 PM
67.8.171.23
|
So long as this is a voluntary system and users don't badger others about it, I'm cool with this. I'd even go so far as to put words "like recommended," "suggested," and "preferred" in the template sticky thread. After all, A well-detailed design allows discussion to jump right to the fun parts of the discussion rather than teasing out the basics.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Retry
05/28/14 06:55 PM
76.7.236.208
|
The engine type is shown in MM. It's just that they don't label standard fusion engines as standard fusion engines, because it's a standard engine.
For whatever reason MM just shows the specs, and not all the other tiny details.
|
Karagin
05/28/14 08:09 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Specs would be great with tonnages and criticals and things like that.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/28/14 11:19 PM
24.30.130.67
|
The problem with not having all the information there is the issue, not just the program that is being used. I could just list a few things and say figure it out yourself.
And with the stat sheet, it is nice to see ammo assigned to their areas, since saying you have x amount, but having the ammo in the left leg while the weapon is in the right arm is a little much. Innersphere double heat sinks are needed to be located, since they do not fit in legs yet.. or atleast just after the clan wars.
And a standard engine for a vehicle is not fusion. Also telling its a quad before having to read the whole thing and see armor on front legs is nice.
|
Retry
05/29/14 03:34 AM
76.7.236.208
|
I disagree. There's been so many fusion vehicles added recently that I'm certain they outnumber I.C.E. ones. The I.C.E. tank is in some ways discredited.
|
Karagin
05/29/14 06:10 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Actually Retry if you don't list the engine type folks will assume what ever they want as to what it is. So listing it, along with what type of armor is in use means it removes doubt and issues. Same with using mixed tech, many of the programs put the letter "C" after Clan tech items when used on an Inner Sphere mech, or "IS" after the item's name when used on a Clan mech. Mega Mek doesn't do a lot of the things folks are use to seeing, and we have been over the short falls of Mega Mek's design program.
And Ghostrider is correct fusion is not the standard engine for vehicle, it is becoming more common but it's not the default standard.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nic Jansma
05/29/14 10:58 AM
68.41.71.3
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
So long as this is a voluntary system and users don't badger others about it, I'm cool with this. I'd even go so far as to put words "like recommended," "suggested," and "preferred" in the template sticky thread.
Sorry I wasn't clear -- as you say, this would be a post titled something like:
"Attention New Posters: Preferred Design Posting Formats"
And it would be a voluntary system, ideally where new users would get pointed to the Sticky if they didn't notice it originally. (and not badgered about it)
|
Retry
05/29/14 01:56 PM
76.7.236.208
|
It's not the design program, it's specifically and explicitely the design specs export function.
|
ghostrider
05/30/14 04:09 AM
24.30.134.200
|
Part of the program isn't working right? Sounds like something isn't coded right.
Imagine this. I make a unit and take it over to a friends house to use it. I have only half the information written down and start playing.
Ok, so what is in this torso that just had a crit hit? Oh damn. That isn't there.
Now I have to stop the entire game to figure out what went where and hopefully I don't screw it up since there were no crits left. One badly placed thing and its redesign when I should be playing.
Now on the off chance someone tries the design to see how well it is in battle, and same thing. They get stuck trying to figure out what is where.
And the old saying of common knowledge not being that common. Standard for one person is not always standard for another person. I take it the programmer said there is nothing wrong with the program and will not update it.
|
Retry
05/30/14 02:02 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Nothing is coded wrong. Everything is in the program itself, but the export function shows the specs and that's it.
If you like you could make a suggestion in the megamek forums for a new export format.
|
Karagin
06/04/14 06:37 AM
70.118.139.48
|
So what is the over plan?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nic Jansma
06/18/14 02:33 PM
68.41.71.3
|
Looks like there are several "it should add", "we should include", etc suggestions in the posts above. Karagin, would you mind taking lead and coming up with another iteration of the post above with the included suggestions from posts here?
Happy to post it as a sticky if we can reach consensus.
|
Karagin
06/24/14 10:21 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I will get on things. Been out in the field with work so let me get caught up.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nic Jansma
10/25/14 11:59 AM
73.191.226.169
|
I'm still happy to pursue this if we want. Any more edits to the above?
|
Nic Jansma
12/17/14 11:39 AM
73.191.226.169
|
Ping
|
Drasnighta
03/25/15 05:21 PM
198.53.99.90
|
Old school returning member... Definately go with what is above, for me... I've always done a DrawBoard export, and quite often, I had to type thigns out Manually... Fluff is what makes or breaks things for me, and the more info we have, the better...
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
ghostrider
03/25/15 09:55 PM
76.89.120.217
|
I take it there was no decision or it was decided not to run with a standard stats sheet.
If there was, I don't remember seeing the update on it.
I did run into a discussion about not having all the information at my fingertips reading a few units.
Being lazy, I remembered this subject, but didn't look it up to find out if there had been any official ruling on it.
Is it a dead issue, or is it still being thought over?
If it is still being thought over, it there one for vehicles?
|
Karagin
03/29/15 02:26 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I offered my ideas, and it seems that it's still up in the air. I am more for a layout similar to how HMPro does the stuff which follows the TROs. Which would also go for vehicles, ships, planes, trains etc...sticking with what we know verses the hap-hazard stuff some like to post.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nic Jansma
04/07/15 09:46 PM
73.191.226.169
|
I've moved this to a new topic in the design forum, since there hasn't been any clear objection to the current version. Please post any other recommended updates there.
|