Combat Garage Update

[Magesmiley]

FWIW, I haven't found myself disagreeing too badly with the overall ratings of designs, including those which I've submitted. Different people have very different standards which they use to judge the vehicles. That's ok. It helps avoid group think problems.

While I don't approve stock cars, I do rate car designs. The big thing that I look for is how well rounded the design is. Another is how well they stand up in a group of 4+ players (which is why I often rate ram cars lower).

[Bourgeois Stalker]

It's ok, I was just being a little salty. I do think you're harsh, but you're harsh in a logical way, so I suppose you do you. I'll give a 2-star to a creative use of the art that is not going to do well in combat, but I get what you're saying.

As for the current topic at hand, I've turned in for the stock list a $220k super-spy car that has not made it on the list yet after three tries, and I hope that these anonymous moderators aren't just rejecting it because of the cost, because I consider it very well thought-out.

[Lindmark71]

Hey Aaron. After many years, I finally decided to try out your designer.

Let me first say that I know how hard it is designing something from scratch, so I can definitely commend you for all the work you've put into this.

One suggestion I would like to make is to offer a public access to a bug recording tool, like Bugzilla, ClearQuest, or something else, open-sourced, etc, as a clearing house for bugs found (something the public can contribute to) and bugs fixed, so anyone who finds the same bugs someone else has found won't list them again (like I'm probably about to).

I banged out a Div 15 ram car, and found the following:

1) Dischargers have options for fire retardant insulators, concealment and blow through concealment. None of these are needed and shouldn't be shown as available options.

2) High torque motors and heavy duty high torque motors are implemented to be mutually exclusive. Please point to the rule that says this is so. It may not be tactically sound or cost-effective, but I am not aware of a rule that specifically says they can not be combined. They may not be _engaged_ at the same time, surely, but it's reasonable to allow the designer to include them both.

3) I do not see the option to use blow through concealment on a rocket booster. Given the tactical advantage of concealing the ability to accelerate, this is a routinely chosen option for me.

4) The graphics for the dischargers is not implemented correctly. Side dischargers do not show at all, and front and back dischargers appear as projectile weapons. (You mention this part is a work in progress).

5) Wheel hubs are not implementing correctly for any wheel.

6) Changes to existing designs are not correctly reflected on the design page. Reloading the design is often required.

That's all I've tested so far. I look forward to future updates, and thanks for all the work you've put into this to date.

Drive offensively,

Curt

[Parody]

Originally Posted by Lindmark71

2) High torque motors and heavy duty high torque motors are implemented to be mutually exclusive. Please point to the rule that says this is so. It may not be tactically sound or cost-effective, but I am not aware of a rule that specifically says they can not be combined. They may not be _engaged_ at the same time, surely, but it's reasonable to allow the designer to include them both.

The Uncle Albert's 2051 Catalog Supplement article says that HDHTMs cannot be combined with HTMs. (It's in the HDHTMs description.)

[Lindmark71]

Thanks for the link. It's the first time I've seen that description.

I'm glad I couched my feedback with "as far as I know".

Drive offensively.

Curt

[ammulder]

Originally Posted by Lindmark71

Hey Aaron. After many years, I finally decided to try out your designer.
[...]

Thanks for the notes. For the record, which browser/OS did you use?

Can you be more specific on the part of wheel hubs that aren't working? (You need to change the tech level away from the default "Classic" to have them enabled at all, FWIW.)

For #6 the changes not being reflected, can you give some specific steps to reproduce? Are you working with a design all the way through or loading a saved design and adjusting from there? You can PM me a link if it only happens for a specific saved design that you don't want to share.

[Racer]

I think the problem might be the Hubs option being cut off at the bottom of the screen ? If you turn your phone/device the other way , some browsers like Chrome won't let you zoom in & then the buttons are often too small to press ?

Similar thing happens sometimes with Top or Under Armour facings if vehicle as 10 facings - you have to switch to Metal/Composite Armour setting - then turn if on & off - to access all those that get 'cut off' .

[Magesmiley]

As long as Aaron is looking at bugs again, I'll toss in a one more that I noticed recently:

Sidecars seem to have some issues in how they are implemented, particularly in the area of body modifications, such as carbon-aluminum frame (try to make a cycle with a normal frame and the sidecar with a CA Frame). It might be better to implement them as their own entity (similar to trailers) rather than a cycle add-on. And then focus on a general "pulling" solution that allows you to specify one (or more - multiple trailers chained together are legal) designs that are being pulled by the primary vehicle.

[nidan71]

An update on my CG report:

1) Dischargers have options for fire retardant insulators, concealment and blow through concealment. None of these are needed and shouldn't be shown as available options. - update: This is still the case. Severity: trivial

2) High torque motors and heavy duty high torque motors are implemented to be mutually exclusive. Please point to the rule that says this is so. It may not be tactically sound or cost-effective, but I am not aware of a rule that specifically says they can not be combined. They may not be _engaged_ at the same time, surely, but it's reasonable to allow the designer to include them both. - update: This is being implemented correctly. Removed.

3) I do not see the option to use blow through concealment on a rocket booster. Given the tactical advantage of concealing the ability to accelerate, this is a routinely chosen option for me. - Update: This can be considered a scope increase. Severity - trivial.

4) The graphics for the dischargers is not implemented correctly. Side dischargers do not show at all, and front and back dischargers appear as projectile weapons. (You mention this part is a work in progress). My PC has the 3D Print enabled, and my laptop does not (I'm sure that's a local software config/capability issue).

5) Wheel hubs are not implementing correctly for any wheel. - update: This is working correctly. Resolved.

6) Changes to existing designs are not correctly reflected on the design page. Reloading the design is often required. - update: Updating the graphical layout as values are changed can be considered a scope increase. The data does eventually match the picture, and the picture matches the data.

Drive offensively.

Curt

[nidan71]

Also, and amendment: you can install component armor on a discharger. This should be grayed out as an option as well.

Thanks

Curt