New Development Snapshot 0.47.7 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ

[Hammer]

What was the reason for adding the Command Center tab?  I can't go to the link provided because my computer blocks the link as inappropriate.  Personally, I can't see any value to having the daily log unavailable in the other tabs.

Attached is PDF of the webpage. So browsers will block the link as we redirect to a hosted website on Github it is safe and override it and go to our site.

[Taharqa]

What was the reason for adding the Command Center tab?  I can't go to the link provided because my computer blocks the link as inappropriate.  Personally, I can't see any value to having the daily log unavailable in the other tabs.

Because its #$@!% ugly as #$%. I created it many moons ago and I have wanted it to die ever since. But to be clear, the command center and the changes to the log are distinct. We could go back to a global log across all tabs and keep the command center.

We are still evaluating the changes to the log. It is possible we may go back to a global one, a detached one or something else entirely.

[Reglor]

Thanks for the info.  I will say that I find the new layout to be less functional than the old version, but that may be my resistance to change.  Restoring the daily log would fix most of the problems I have with it.

[MoleMan]

Yeah I feel pretty similar tbh

[Sir Chaos]

I´m still getting used to the new UI as well. I think the Command Center is an improvement over all, but the message log really was useful.

Maybe implement something along the lines of what´s in the Repair Bay in the other tabs as well - a field that shows the last entry or two in the message log specifically pertaining to that tab.

[Snake Eyes]

I noticed that when printing to a pdf, special ammo doesn't show up, it just shows generic ammo.

[Iceweb]

Just to be a voice for the other side I kinda like the new command center. 

While I like always having the log available, not having it on every page frees up space to see things better on some crowded pages like the repair bay, or the warehouse. 

On the other hand I'm having trouble with the interstellar map page these days.  For some reason I'm convinced that it previously was a globe shaped window, and the rectangular map stretched out by having the log gone just looks jarring and off to me.   

[mighty midget]

In my AtB scenario I've salvaged a couple of LAMs but am having issues repairing them.  For any limbs/torso/head that need to be replaced I get the "Repairable parts in the (corresponding location) must be salvaged or scrapped first" message.  I've shifted the units to Salvage status but can't find anything that needs to be pulled or repaired from the busted location.

Any thoughts or ideas?

[BairdEC]

In my experience, I always have to remove the avionics from all locations.  IIRC, that's head and the left and right torsos.

[Iceweb]

I had a power outage last night when this happened so I couldn't post it and I didn't think to screen shot it(sorry).  But I had princess have a LMR carrier to shoot at (I think) a Vtol needing 13s to hit.  I'm guessing it didn't account for the +1 penatly for Vtol movement and thought it was firing on 12s and then the modification was added later in the calculation. 

Might be something for someone to look into at some point.

[BairdEC]

I had a power outage last night when this happened so I couldn't post it and I didn't think to screen shot it(sorry).  But I had princess have a LMR carrier to shoot at (I think) a Vtol needing 13s to hit.  I'm guessing it didn't account for the +1 penatly for Vtol movement and thought it was firing on 12s and then the modification was added later in the calculation. 

Might be something for someone to look into at some point.

I've seen Princess do that a bunch of times.  I can't remember if there's an existing ticket for it.

[GreekFire]

A few small mistakes regarding the Titan's introductory date.
The TI-1A is listed as being introduced in 2787; the MUL has it at 2765.
The TI-1Aj and TI-1Ar are listed as being introduced in 3023; the MUL has it at 3123 and 3132, respectively.

[Sartris]

The latter was an mul mistake that got corrected and didn’t get done in MML. I remember because I reported it  :))

[CDAT]

In my AtB scenario I've salvaged a couple of LAMs but am having issues repairing them.  For any limbs/torso/head that need to be replaced I get the "Repairable parts in the (corresponding location) must be salvaged or scrapped first" message.  I've shifted the units to Salvage status but can't find anything that needs to be pulled or repaired from the busted location.

Any thoughts or ideas?

I had this issue as well, I salvaged everything, then tried to rebuild it, but same issue. I had to go GM it to fix it.

I´m still getting used to the new UI as well. I think the Command Center is an improvement over all, but the message log really was useful.

Maybe implement something along the lines of what´s in the Repair Bay in the other tabs as well - a field that shows the last entry or two in the message log specifically pertaining to that tab.

I also think that overall it will probably be an improvement after I get used to it. I kind of like how the tab turns red when there is something to look at, however it does that even if there is nothing there, just a new day.

[Iceweb]

Was building a customization of a Battle Taxi in Lab and I noticed a three small bugs with making the small craft. 

First I noticed that while the fuel section is proper for the weight, the summary section below will list the weight of the fuel as half a ton higher than is actually on the craft (unless fuel is zero)  This seems to be a purely cosmetic effect. 

Second I attempted to validate the small craft and it passed validation, I then realized that I had not assigned the guardian ecm to any slot, and placed it in the hull slot.  The validation should not have been passed with an item unallocated. 

Third I attempted to see the cost breakdown of the craft in Cbills.  I selected the Unit Validation menu, and took the fourth choice Unit Cost Breakdown, then the first choice Breakdown Current Unit.  This causes it to pop up a window with the Battle Value calculations for the craft, instead of the Cbill cost. 

These are all relatively minor, but if someone could check that the three issues are happening to them also and let me know, I can open a ticket for the changes. 

In addition I know that when the small craft and above sized ships were placed into MegaMek, there was a decent amount of work to get the ships to proper size/rule sets. 

When I loaded the Battle Taxi into lab it showed up about 20 tonnes underweight.  It also listed the crew quarters as 3 crew and 1 gunner (one being an officer)  however the quarters are listed as 4 steerage.  When using the auto assign button it changes it to 3 steerage and an officer's quarters.  This does not use up anywhere near the amount of tonnage to fill the missing space. 

And while I am on it I don't know if it is fluff or gameplay, but the Battle Taxi has two BA bays and a single ton cargo bay.  None of these have any doors.  However if these are removed and the two BA bays and the 1 ton cargo bay are replaced they are listed with a door each (which doesn't fill the max 4 doors allowed for the small craft) at the same weight and all other statistics.  There is no build reason to handicap the ship by leaving the doors off that I can see, but maybe they want to be left off for fluff reasons.  In any case someone should take a look at changing the quarters and fixing the missing tonnage. 

[Hammer]

Was building a customization of a Battle Taxi in Lab and I noticed a three small bugs with making the small craft. 

First I noticed that while the fuel section is proper for the weight, the summary section below will list the weight of the fuel as half a ton higher than is actually on the craft (unless fuel is zero)  This seems to be a purely cosmetic effect. 

This is a bug and should be reported.

Second I attempted to validate the small craft and it passed validation, I then realized that I had not assigned the guardian ecm to any slot, and placed it in the hull slot.  The validation should not have been passed with an item unallocated. 

Bug and should be reported

Third I attempted to see the cost breakdown of the craft in Cbills.  I selected the Unit Validation menu, and took the fourth choice Unit Cost Breakdown, then the first choice Breakdown Current Unit.  This causes it to pop up a window with the Battle Value calculations for the craft, instead of the Cbill cost. 

Known bug - https://github.com/MegaMek/megameklab/issues/590

When I loaded the Battle Taxi <snip> ...   

This is a unit from TRO 3057 and released in 2004. Long before the Total Warfare rule set. Units from that era and book in particular are troublesome and I've lots of construction errors. A lot of years ago there was a rumor of the 3057 book being updated with fixed stats. But without those stats we constructed the units to the best of our abililty to match the current TRO.

We have a long standing policy to only add units with Record Sheets. But TRO 3057 is our biggest exception to that rule and we've accepted lots of those units have errors (in particular underweight and crew issues). But we won't/can't fix units that we don't know the intended stats. It's also note our policy to make up stats (which again I've broken for 3057 to create variants based on fluff).

At this point I'd suggest to remake the Battle Taxi to fit what works for you.  Hopefully we'll get a new 3057 book with all proper stats.

[Sir Chaos]

I also think that overall it will probably be an improvement after I get used to it. I kind of like how the tab turns red when there is something to look at, however it does that even if there is nothing there, just a new day.

In the long run, I think it would be a good idea to be able to configure what kinds of messages make the tab turn red, and which do not.

[Iceweb]

Lab tracker has issue 711 and 712 created to deal with the top two issues.