Cosmoteer Official Forum

Astrum Thanks for your feedback! I updated the mod with a fix for the Landing Pad (test) and the Big Twin Cannon. The Phase Shield Linker has a couple of problems i havent figure it out how to fix yet, the first one is that even when full it uses to much energy and the second one is that when the shields are on low hp they absorb more damage than it should. The steltek guns and the steltek drone are "hidden" parts i made for a future campaing mode.

Kroom Wow, thanks for fixing those issues so quickly!

I definitely noticed that the shields were absorbing more damage than they were suppose to at low hp. I had some exceedingly-high damage weapons from the warhammer mod struggle to bring them down.

Thanks again for your hard-work!

Kroom If i can find them, i might try making the two steltek parts Buildable, Dont worry, if anyone else wants to see them work they gotta do it emselves

what does the test docking pad do

Bug with docking bay in version 0.15.5d.
After attaching a ship to the docking bay the ship isnt able to take the attached ship with it to FTL.

Roasted It's been that way scince the mod came out (for me atleast)

Roasted Since the crew update, the crew operating the landing pad leaves it when they need to charge the FTL, if that happens the landing mechanis will be disabled, can you check if that what is happening?. Also check that the cockpit is on top of the landing pad.

Fighter cockpits can't transfer power to FTL drive, or at least not to fighter scale FTL drives.

Also, that concern I raised way back about a lack of falloff in mass drivers that you discounted because long mass drivers had their fire rate limited by the ability to get batteries and bullets through just two doors? Well now you can use small cockpits to put power in from the sides. One about every ten tiles seems to pretty well match the maximum firerate.

Atarlost Fighter cockpits can't transfer power to FTL drive, or at least not to fighter scale FTL drives.

Yes, that's intended.

Atarlost Also, that concern I raised way back about a lack of falloff in mass drivers that you discounted because long mass drivers had their fire rate limited by the ability to get batteries and bullets through just two doors? Well now you can use small cockpits to put power in from the sides. One about every ten tiles seems to pretty well match the maximum firerate.

Oh, that's a bug, i will fix it for the next update, thanks.

I've gone back to trying to make carriers work, and run into some technical issues.

1) It is possible to sling fighters by engaging the jump before the carrier finished charging its FTL. The fighters wind up in the next system while the carrier remains behind. This would allow a single pad carrier to project any number of fighters without having to make multiple ferrying trips.

Suggested solution: If fighters can inherit the charging status of the ship mounting the pad transporting them they wouldn't be able to jump before the carrier.

2) Fighers on the pad (test) cannot be selected without selecting the carrier, nor can components be selected without selecting the pad. Movement orders to the pad also get interpreted as follow orders. All of these appear to be consequences of the pad (test) mask encompassing the entire pad.

Speculative solution: I don't know if it's possible, but if the mask was hollow with only a half or quarter tile's width around the edges needed only for connections the pad would interfere far less.

3) The pad (test) cannot be overlapped with engine exclusion zones. This is unavoidable given its purpose, but makes putting engines on impure carriers more difficult. The easiest place to put landing pads on mixed use ships is at the back in the exclusion zones for the engines. The parts having the same name implies that if the test version works out the old version will be discontinued. I would urge you to not do that.

From a not-so technical standpoint, the cheapest pregen carrier is too expensive to have both it and a useful fighter the first time you have to make a jump. A more minimalist carrier with a fighter scale cockpit, reactor, and jump drive and no factories would be more useful.

ConnCraft Thanks, i will fix it for the next update.

Atarlost Suggested solution: If fighters can inherit the charging status of the ship mounting the pad transporting them they wouldn't be able to jump before the carrier.

I will try to do something like this for the next update.

Atarlost Speculative solution: I don't know if it's possible, but if the mask was hollow with only a half or quarter tile's width around the edges needed only for connections the pad would interfere far less.

Sadly it's not possible to do hollow parts that can also be attached to other parts.

Atarlost 3) The pad (test) cannot be overlapped with engine exclusion zones. This is unavoidable given its purpose, but makes putting engines on impure carriers more difficult. The easiest place to put landing pads on mixed use ships is at the back in the exclusion zones for the engines. The parts having the same name implies that if the test version works out the old version will be discontinued. I would urge you to not do that.

I'm not sure about this, i never liked that the thrusters could be placed over landing pads.

Atarlost From a not-so technical standpoint, the cheapest pregen carrier is too expensive to have both it and a useful fighter the first time you have to make a jump. A more minimalist carrier with a fighter scale cockpit, reactor, and jump drive and no factories would be more useful.

I'm thinking in adjusting the cost of the landing pad to 10k and the 1x1 FTL to 5k to make landing pad more useful.

Landing pads don't reload modded launchers, and they seem to just void ammo if there's no ship above.

ConnCraft Landing pad should reload any part that uses normal ammo or HE missile parts, can you tell me which modded launcher are you trying to load? Also there is no way to avoid the waste of ammo if there is no ship to load.

OK, just the Kroom's missile launcher. Torpedo's seem to work OK. Not playing with any other mods right now.

ConnCraft Can you send me a save where this happens?

Weird: i saved, swapped to an older autosave, then swapped back, and it works. Will go look for any save where it doesn't.

Also the forum doesn't like uploading saves. Are you on Discord?

Kroom I'm not sure about this, i never liked that the thrusters could be placed over landing pads.

If you can't solve the UI issues with landing pads, which it sounds like you can't, I for one will never use the new version of them. The inability to order ships directly onto the pad or select them individually when on the pad are deal breakers even for designs that don't hang landing pads in engine exclusion zones.

Kroom I'm thinking in adjusting the cost of the landing pad to 10k and the 1x1 FTL to 5k to make landing pad more useful.

It's more about the cost of the ship than the cost of the parts. If you don't have the design saved it's a lot more awkward to get a carrier than to slap on an FTL drive. Carrier0 would still cost almost 100k and more than half of that would be extraneous for a first carrier. If you build a minimalist carrier and a sufficiently optimized fighter to the remaining expected post-first-system budget beforehand in sandbox mode it's doable to at least start with nothing but fighters, though I'm not sure fighters alone are viable in the long run.

ConnCraft OK, just the Kroom's missile launcher. Torpedo's seem to work OK. Not playing with any other mods right now.

You may have crew priority problems. If you have two pads served by the same factory your crew will only load one pad unless its full while the fighter on the other pad will only get the ammo in ready storage. You have to turn off loading/repair on all pads that don't have unloaded fighters on them. I don't think teleporters have this issue. They dump ammo into space if it has nowhere to go, but they don't waste ammo when there's a valid destination.

Another issue I've run into is fire. I've had fighters burn to death while on a landing pad being repaired because a cannon started a fire. Repair can sometimes keep up with small fires, but if the fire spreads before the fighter gets back to the pad it can burn faster than it's repaired, and since only repairing with credits can put out the fire, if the carrier is in combat the fighter can't be repaired, rearmed, and returned to the fight even if the damage that caused the fire wouldn't significantly impair its combat capabilities. I've had a surprising number of burning fighters reach a landing pad with nothing unrepairable but the fire itself and some cosmetic armor or RCS structure damage.