Confirming HGS veracity?

[Hal]

Hello Folks,
Has anyone taken the time to verify the overall accuracy of High Guard Shipyard?

The reason I'm asking, is because I just attempted to compare a Lurenti style warship built using High Guard Shipyard, and then building the exact same craft by hand using Excel with data entered by hand using the rules from High Guard itself.

I took the time to detail the weaponry for a 300,000 dton hull, which was as close to the Lurenti class ship from THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN as best as I could. Where High Guard Shipyard does not break down the actual unit costs or volume taken up for individual decisions made using the program, it does keep a running total/tally.

Ultimately, I got the following discrepancies:

Energy remaining:
HGS = 5,938
Excel = 5,648 (A difference of -250, where by hand, cost is MORE expensive than HGS)

Volume remaining:
HGS = 3589
Excel = 3589 (both match each other)

Cost of Ship:
HGS = 138,345.250 MCr.
Excel = 137,705.250 MCr. (A differce of 640 MCr.)

The specifics of the ship design are reasonably close, but for the energy costs for all enegery using systems.

So, the test here is this:

I utilized the following energy using systems:
Model 9 Fib Computer at 12 EP
10x Meson Bay at 2000 EP
10x Particle Bay at 350 EP
10x Repulsor Bay at 100 EP
200 Triple Lasers at 600 EP
200 Dual Laser Fusion Turrets at 800 EP
Meson Screen-9 for 300,000 dton hull at 5400
Nuclear Dampner-9 at 90 EP

Either my spreadsheet data is wrong (Highly possible!) or HGS does not correctly state what the energy usage should be.

I will investigate this further to see where my data and the data from HGS differs when it comes to energy use.

In the meantime, comments are welcome

Found my Discrepancy for energy use. I inadvertantly entered in the cost of the weapon in MCr as its Cost in energy per unit for Particle Accelerators. Whew!!! Glad it worked out properly.

Nothing to see here of importance - bad Hal, bad bad Bad Hal, no cookies for me! (in other words, sorry for wasting the reader's time on this)

 

[BillDowns]

The most annoying thing I have found in HGS, is that it looses the Crewing Rules for smallcraft. When I re-open one of my fighters, it tells me I can't use Book 5 Rules, even though I didn't.

I havent checked the overall design aspects, though. Maybe I should.

 

[Jeffr0]

It adds pulse laser tags to ships that don't have lasers sometimes (maybe).

It dropped one players sandcaster from a triple-turret rig.

Someone reported that the pilot totals for TCS were off due to frozen watch requirements.

"Tags"/"Flags" such as "Frozen Watch" and "Pulse Lasers" are shuffled in an obscure way. There should be a better standard for this.

It doesn't seem to comprehend drop tanks and demountable tanks as far as the short and long USP descriptions are concerned.

Bat Bear and Bat are laid out in the wrong order. Bat should come first.

If the letter code for the ship type is not exactly two characters long, then the bat lines get out of alignment.