CT Ship Builder

[Matt123]

On the face of it, that's a bug. Well done, the first bug report in a long time!

It should increase Bk2 fuel if you wanted say 8 weeks Bk2 PP supply or reduce it if you wanted 1 week.

It will be a while before I can fix it, in part because I haven't needed to touch the app for a while. The fix will also involve quite a bit of overdue maintenance as well and I will need a clear weekend or three. It'll be fun tho, looking forward to it

 

[vegas]

Well I am glad I can be a little helpful. I find your tool to be super helpful!

 

[Proneutron]

Really well done! Thanks Matt

 

[vegas]

Two bug reports for the price of one. (As you can tell I am putting the tool through some use these days...)

For some values of drop tanks, the database craps out and returns the following error:

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

If you are the application owner check the logs for more information.
​

​

Playing around, I found:
for drop tanks of 1,000 dtons, I got the error if the vessel was <4800 dtons.
for drop tanks of 100,000 dtons, I got the error if the vessel was <110991 dtons.

I can keep searching the space if that helps you, but I thought I'd stop there as that was probably enough to help find the issue? It was kind of tedious to find the error points manually...

Anyway, weird, huh?

 

[Matt123]

Anyway, weird, huh?

Very odd, those two points don't relate to anything rules related. That's enough data points though to figure it out

Cheers!

 

[vegas]

Two more reports: the first is not a quality report, and I apologize for that. I will keep investigating.

1) (my intuition is this might be related to drop tank issue above) I like to design liners without any jump fuel at all and get all the fuel from drop tanks. Periodically when I do that, I get the "We're sorry, but something went wrong" error, but not always. I will keep trying to figure out what order of operations I can go through to get the app to accept or reject 0 parsecs of jump fuel, but I don't yet know what does the trick. (It is possible this is exactly the same bug as the drop tank issue. I can't confirm either way until I figure out how to make it happen.)

Obviously my feature request would be that 0 parsecs should be aok for a design and not rejected if that is what is happening.

2) in the payload section, only the prepopulated "cargo" line is properly accounting for fractional dtons. All other lines are retaining the fractional dtons in the "quantity" field when input, but drop the decimal portion in the tonnage calculation. This is a bigger deal for small craft design than ship design, but the same result occurs for both designers.

Since fractions of dtons is a thing, it would be nice to be able to use them especially for small craft. The current function of accepting the decimal input, but dropping (not even rounding!) them for the calculation will allow the unwary to design an impossible craft. The work around is to sum up all fractions and add them into the cargo line, and note what that tonnage really represents.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If we are getting petty:

Hull cost not correct. Example a custom 200 Dton hull with configuration 6 (streamlined) and scoops is calculated to MCr 20. It should be MCr 22 according to LBB2 or MCr 16.2 according to LBB5.


Not allowing mixing standard and custom drives is, as far as I can see, a house rule.


Fuel is not optional. You must have a full load (or more) of fuel according to the rules. No warning for insufficient fuel is given.

Demountable or Collapsible tanks not available.


Turret allocation of batteries is incorrect:

Two batteries correctly allocated to one dual turret. Exactly one hardpoint should be free, not 1.17.


Two such turrets incorrectly calculated, should be 4 Dton total. No hardpoint should be free.


This combination should not be possible, no warning given. Two double turrets plus an extra sandcaster not allowed.


The mixed Fusion+Sand turret incorrectly calculated, should be 2 Dton, not 3 Dton.


With more than 10 turrets, no mixed turrets allowed. The Fusion and Sandcaster takes one turret each. No hardpoints should be free.


Any type of spinal of the current TL or less should be selectable, not just of the max TL.


Empty bay not possible to allocate.


Cost of bays not calculated, MCr 1 for 100 Dton bay and MCr 0.5 for 50 Dton bay.


Gunnery crew not correctly allocated.
Small ship with two mixed turrets gets no gunners.
1000 Dton ship with 10 turrets (see above) gets 11 gunners, should be 10.
1100 Dton ship with the same 10 turrets gets 12 gunners, should be 15.

LBB5 crew not correctly calculated (1100 Dton ship):

The Command section should have 7 officers + 50% ratings = 10 or 11 personnel.
Security troops are optional, should be adjustable.
Stewards and medics are not needed in addition to the service crew, using both LBB5 and LBB2 requirements.


Frozen Watch drop down not sufficient, if you want frozen watches to survive a meson hit you generally want more frozen watches, one or three is not sufficient. Just having one frozen watch is not very useful.


Stateroom allocation incorrect, each crew section head should get a separate stateroom (200 Dton ship), not all officers:



Launch tube input not sufficient: You might want several sizes of launch tubes, say, one for small fighters and one for larger craft.

 

[Matt123]

lol, nothing petty about it. Bug reports are useful, although I'm somewhat surprised by the volume here

Will take a look and reply in detail. It won't be fast though, I'm flat out at the moment.

Cheers
Matt

 

[vegas]

@AD and Matt,

Several of those are "feature requests" rather than "bugs".

The hardpoint calcs ARE wonky at times, especially with mixed turrets. I usually just watch those myself (plus I have my own house rules that limits them below RAW.)

Fuel is not optional. You must have a full load (or more) of fuel according to the rules. No warning for insufficient fuel is given.

Ah, don't be a rules lawyer AD. Not even the canonical xboat follows that. But if you want a full fuel load, nothin's stopping you from designing it in.

Demountable or Collapsible tanks not available.

They are in the Payload section

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not even the canonical xboat follows that.

The X-boat has a full load of fuel for its drives, it just doesn't have a power plant, which might have been possible under LBB2'77.

They are in the Payload section

So, it is, thanks.

That works well for Collapsible tanks, but the Demountable tanks are not counted towards available fuel or the size of the purification plant.


Note that Exterior Demountable tanks are incorrectly deducted from interior space and does not affect drive performance. Exterior tanks should be treated like retained drop tanks.


Any size drop tanks leads to "We're sorry, but something went wrong." when using a standard LBB2 jump drive.


Fuel purification plant not sized for retained drop tanks or demountable tanks.

Fuel purification plant should be dimensioned for all fuel carried, or at least a full load of fuel for the drives, regardless of if drop tanks are retained or not.

See rest of ship below. The purifier should be dimensioned for 1260 Dt fuel and be 18.9 Dt.


Agility calculation incorrect with drop tanks and standard drives (here a 1800 Dt ship with 1200 Dt tanks):

The computer should limit agility to 1 below PPn, so 3 with tanks and 5 w/o tanks.

Reasonably the PP should not produce more EPs just because a drop tanks is added. The PP should produce 108 EP (Hull 1800 Dt × PPn 6 / 100), not 120 EP (Hull + tanks 3000 Dt × PPn 4 / 100), and definitely not 180 EP (Hull + tanks 3000 Dt × PPn 6 / 100).


Incorrect calculation of jump capability shown in drop tanks section. In the above example the ship has a Computer 4, it is not capable of Jump-6, even if the tanks are dropped.


Incorrect warning of invalid design: A ship with a jump drive 6 doesn't need a computer 6, it just can't achieve jump 6 without it. It is completely correct by the rules to have a smaller computer and hence jump capability.

It might be stupid, but it is correct. In this case it makes sense when a permanent drop tanks or exterior demountable tanks are added.


Inconsistent handling of standard and custom drives. Standard drives are rated to hull only, custom drives are rated to hull + drop tanks (but not exterior demountable tanks). See agility calculation above for an example.

 

[vegas]

@AD,

When it comes to hull/bridge/fuel purifier implications of collapsible/demountable/drop/exterior tanks, I think many of your comments are feature requests (eg demountable treated as retained drop) or are debatable under RAW. Ships can be retrofitted with tanks, and RAW does not require changing the fuel purifier (or bridge!) to do it.

I say KISS and have the app do less as the user can impose whatever constraints they want by adding lines in the payload. Reasonable users may disagree. (Even if you think more fuel purifier is "required" RAW when tanks are present, perhaps the use-case is that a tanker fills retrofitted tanks with refined fuel...)

One of your comments is wrong:

Any size drop tanks leads to "We're sorry, but something went wrong." when using a standard LBB2 jump drive.

The app will accept drop tanks with standard designs, but under what circumstances the application errors is unclear to me. I posted around this issue above. I think the error is hull size, but maybe it is engine related. I haven't figured it out yet as a user.

The computer should limit agility to 1 below PPn, so 3 with tanks and 5 w/o tanks.

Huh?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

When it comes to hull/bridge/fuel purifier implications of collapsible/demountable/drop/exterior tanks, I think many of your comments are feature requests (eg demountable treated as retained drop) or are debatable under RAW. Ships can be retrofitted with tanks, and RAW does not require changing the fuel purifier (or bridge!) to do it.

Possibly some feature request, but some are just wrong.

Bridges should not be affected by internal or external tanks, just basic hull size.

Exterior demountable tanks are handled incorrectly: they are external, so should not consume space inside the hull, but should explicitly by RAW affect drive performance (just like retained drop tanks).

By RAW ships must have a full load of fuel (which may be in external tanks). The fuel purifier must be dimensioned for all fuel tankage, so at least a full load. It's not now. I call that incorrect behaviour.

RAW is pretty clear, as far as I can see:

Fuel tankage must be sufficient to contain a full load for the power plant and the jump drive. Additional tankage may be installed as an option.

All craft must be fitted with fuel tanks during the design and construction process. The size of those tanks is determined by the fuel formulae for jump drives and power plants. ... Enough fuel for the power plant must be carried in normal fuel tanks; jump fuel and additional fuel may be carried in one of the additional tankage types outlined below.

The fuel purification plant cost is based on 1,000 tons of fuel. A large ship with a large fuel tank capacity requires several plants. A small fuel tank capacity requires a fraction of the fuel purification plant shown.

I agree that if you add more fuel tankage in drop tanks or demountable tanks after the ship is designed, the fuel purifier need not be changed. Any external tanks always changes drive performance.

I say KISS and have the app do less as the user can impose whatever constraints they want by adding lines in the payload.

Letting the user do what he wants is great, but the app should default to RAW IMHO.

A feature request would be for an optional validation system that checks that the ship is correct by RAW, even if the user adjusts to taste. That way a player can hand his design to the Referee with a clear "Validated" mark.

One of your comments is wrong:The app will accept drop tanks with standard designs, but under what circumstances the application errors is unclear to me. I posted around this issue above. I think the error is hull size, but maybe it is engine related. I haven't figured it out yet as a user.

Possibly, I haven't tested all possibilities, but a few cases from 200 Dt to 1800 Dt. With no internal jump fuel, any drop tank at all combined with a standard LBB2 jump drive leads to error.

Add J-1 internal jump fuel or a custom jump drive and the error disappears.

The computer should limit agility to 1 below PPn, so 3 with tanks and 5 w/o tanks.

Huh?

The computer draws power. Hence a ship with a PP-4 and that computer cannot have enough free power for Agility 4. See the example:

The app calculates power production and hence agility incorrectly in this case. Makes sense?

 

[vegas]

RAW is pretty clear, as far as I can see:

I don't want to clutter up Matt's feedback thread with too much rules lawyering, so I'll be real brief an move on but I gotta disagree. Re-read the B5 p22 and A5 p13 quotes you posted; they contradict each other. The CT errata makes explicit that less than 4 weeks PP fuel is OK in both the xboat and small craft errata. IMHO Matt's implementation is perfect.

Back to bug reports.

The computer draws power. Hence a ship with a PP-4 and that computer cannot have enough free power for Agility 4. See the example:

The ship in your example has PP 6, not 4. Nevertheless, there is something weird about how that checkbox works (it adds the drop tanks to ship dtons when calcuating EPs). As a user, I always leave it unchecked and the agility calcs come out just fine.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don't want to clutter up Matt's feedback thread with too much rules lawyering, so I'll be real brief an move on but I gotta disagree.

OK.

The ship in your example has PP 6, not 4.

That is one of the problems.

It's a 1800 Dt ship with a 1200 Dton drop tank, so total 3000 Dton.

A standard Z-drive is potential 6 w/o tank and potential 4 w tank. The app lists it as potential 6 w tank. That is wrong. As a consequence the EP calculation is incorrect. Note that the custom jump drive is also potential 6 w/o tank and potential 4 w tank, and listed correctly.

The drive potential calculations in the drop tanks section are correct, but the agility calculations are wrong, presumably because the EP calculation for the PP is incorrect.

Nevertheless, there is something weird about how that checkbox works (it adds the drop tanks to ship dtons when calcuating EPs).

That is as it should be, I assume, and necessary to design a ship like the Gazelle with a permanent drop tank. Check the checkbox and the drives are dimensioned for the ship with drop tanks. It works for custom drives, but not for standard drives.

As a user, I always leave it unchecked and the agility calcs come out just fine.

The agility calculation in the drive section is still incorrect. It should be Agility 3, but listed as Agility 6.

The ship with tank has Man-4, PP-4, and some other power consumption (the computer), hence the agility is lower than 4.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

To explain it more clearly I see two problems with the drive calculations:

(The ship is 1800 Dt with a 1200 Dt drop tank for a total volume of 3000 Dt and has a computer m/4 using 2 EP.)

1: EP produced is based on ship+tank, EP needed for agility is based on ship alone, in the drive section. The drop tank section is correct. Note that agility is 3 in the tank section!



2: When using standard LBB2 drives, potential is based on ship alone in the drive section, but the EP produced is based on ship+tank, hence the produced EP is incorrect. The tank section calculates the correct drive potentials, but presumably uses the incorrect EP produced to calculate an incorrect agility:

Note that with standard drives the ship+tanks and the ship alone leads to two different values for EP produced (and required for full agility):
Ship+tank: 3000 Dt × PP-4 × 1% = 120 EP.
Ship alone: 1800 Dt × PP-6 × 1% = 108 EP.
So the value calculated in the drive section should not be used in the tank section...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

We can add that the sum of the drive costs is wrong if the sum is slightly above MCr 1000:


Sum should be MCr 600 + MCr 165 + MCr 360 = MCr 1125.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

TL-8 ship:




1: Standard jump drive inappropriately limited by custom drive TL table.

2: Standard man drive not limited by custom drive TL table or LBB3 TL table, which I believe is correct!

At least standard drives of all types should be treated equally?


3: With no jump drive the drop tank section list jump capability as "-1", not "0".

 

[Spinward Flow]

 

[infojunky]

What he said

 

[Fovean]

I seem to recall Matt123 posting that he would no longer be supporting or hosting the tool but I can’t find the post.