Register Register

Author Topic: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ  (Read 1365 times)

Hammer

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2165
    • MegaMek Website
Hi Everyone,

The 47.1 release had a few nasty bugs around SV's and resolution in MekHQ. This release should resolve those.

**FOR MAC USERS**
There isn't a Mac release and you'll have to use the Unix release. We are having issues with the Gradle packaging scripts and various security settings in MacOS.  We are working on the issue and have no ETA for a fix.

Megamek/MegaMekLab/MekHQ.
Since this is basically a bug fix release see here for the 0.47.1 release notes

Also a reminder to drop into the Slack channel to meet other players and harass the devs that drop in and out. 

As a reminder when moving between versions:
1)   Make backups of your campaigns and customs.
2)   Always treat each release as a stand alone release and only copy your data forward from older versions.

There is a good chance you’ll have issues in MekHQ with unit name changes.  If you get errors loading your campaign as result of unit name errors please see this post.
Name Issues with units
The change log below lists all the changes in this release from the previous stable.

CHANGE LOGS AND DOWNLOAD LINKS
Megamek.
Download Here
Code: [Select]
+PR #1535: Use correct cost for Protomech EDP armor
+PR #1533: Improved bot usage of field gun infantry
+PR #1541: Fixes an issue where tanks that took "immobilized" motive damage in high-G would still be considered mobile

MegaMekLab.
Download Here
Code: [Select]
+ Issue #365: Protomek Tab is missing its fluff section
+ Issue #367: Rail Support Vehicle - External Power Pickup not saving
+ Issue #369: Issues with Mirroring Aero units.

MekHQ:
Download Here
Code: [Select]
+ PR #1325: Customize protomechs and advanced aero in MekLab
+ PR #1326: Fix another potential error preventing day advancement when giving training XP
+ Issue #1327, 1329: Fixed multiple issues relating to scenario resolution introduced in 47.1
+ Issue #1333: Simca Ambulance possibly causing campaign to not load
+ Issue #1337: Offboard artillery - designate hex phase skipped when artillery comes from mekhq
+ Issue #1330: Fix NPE when PersonViewPanel has a pregnant individual
+ Issue #1316: Resolve money parsing exception in Retirement Defection Tracker

Enjoy everyone
« Last Edit: 15 November 2019, 19:44:45 by Hammer »
MegaMek Projects Wiki
Bug Trackers
MegaMek Tracker
MekHQ Tracker
MegaMekLab Tracker
New Units and RAT's aren't added until after the 2 month release moratorium is passed.


Bludlust

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #1 on: 16 November 2019, 02:23:58 »
on Ubuntu 18.04, trying to extract 0.47.2 gives me a hellishly long error... Error opening file "/media/scott/Drive 2/Gaming/Battletech/MegaMek/MegaMekHQ/mekhq-0.47.2/data/boards/building_no_basements/Ueberlandstra?e 2.board": Invalid or incomplete multibyte or wide character

Yskonyn

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Running an online thing is like herding cats
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #2 on: 16 November 2019, 05:20:47 »
Excellent news Hammer!
Insta-download

bblaney

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1142
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #3 on: 17 November 2019, 15:39:37 »
If there was one thing I could wish for, one thing at all, it would be the ability to add custom weapons much easier.

Besides that I love everything ya got and are doing.
Quote from: Nanaki
Realism is not going to cut it, Battletech is not a realistic universe by any stretch of the imagination, so please stop using it in an argument.

Quote from: HABeas2
That's debatable, but let's face it; some folks gave them a pass because they were big and claimed to be Scottish.

Rince Wind

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 110
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #4 on: 18 November 2019, 12:59:53 »
Not sure if it is a bug or intendet behavior, so I am asking here first.
Vees without crew are shown as crippled and having speed 0/0. At least to me that is really confusing, and it took me a while to figure out what the problem was, especially as GM-repairing didn't work and if I added 1 armor damage they would show up in the repair bay with motive damage that could be repaired as well.

AldanFerrox

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #5 on: 27 November 2019, 09:30:55 »
I have a problem with the WarShips. If I try to add a Barracuda Capital Missile Launcher it adds a Teleoperated Barracuda instead. Also, is it correct that the editor shows a number of wasted armor points if I add the maximum number of armor to a WarShip?
Only in death duty ends

Hammer

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2165
    • MegaMek Website
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #6 on: 27 November 2019, 09:46:24 »
I have a problem with the WarShips. If I try to add a Barracuda Capital Missile Launcher it adds a Teleoperated Barracuda instead. Also, is it correct that the editor shows a number of wasted armor points if I add the maximum number of armor to a WarShip?
The issue with the Barracuda has been fixed for the next release.  Not sure on the wasted armor.
MegaMek Projects Wiki
Bug Trackers
MegaMek Tracker
MekHQ Tracker
MegaMekLab Tracker
New Units and RAT's aren't added until after the 2 month release moratorium is passed.


Simon Landmine

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 413
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #7 on: 27 November 2019, 12:33:28 »
Just seen the update with regard to BV calculation on Pilot skill. The joy of ever-moving goalposts.
"That's Lieutenant Faceplant to you, Corporal!"
Things that I have learnt through clicking too fast on 'Move Done' on MegaMek: Double-check the CF of the building before jumping onto it, check artillery arrival times before standing in the neighbouring hex, and don't run across your own minefield.

MoleMan

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 169
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #8 on: 27 November 2019, 13:56:28 »
Is it normal that the leopard drop ship I just bought cost me 150 million c bills to purchase but to sell it I would only get 8m back? That's scuppered my plans to slowly upgrade my ship!

Iceweb

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 452
  • Lyran Engineer
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #9 on: 27 November 2019, 18:56:46 »
I also noticed that the resale value on dropships seems way too low

yukamichi

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #10 on: 28 November 2019, 09:01:48 »
There was a significant change to how MekHQ calculates the sale prices of units (but NOT individual parts, last I checked) starting with 0.45.4. I couldn't find any mention of it in the release notes, and when I asked about it here I got no answer. The price seems to change almost exponentially with quality now, instead of linearly (a doubled-up part quality price divisor somewhere maybe>)

Opened up a new stock-AtB-settings campaign in 0.45.3 and the sale value for a newly purchased Leopard is...96 million.

Rince Wind

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 110
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #11 on: 28 November 2019, 09:45:47 »
I was sure I read something in the changelog about changing bloated sale values, but I can't find it anymore.
It feels that I am making a lot less money since 47.1, since contract payment is based on sell price as well.

BairdEC

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 119
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #12 on: 29 November 2019, 16:14:14 »
I really like the 0.47.x development builds.  I've seen the game use my dropships for missions, load and dismount troops in IFVs, spot for indirect fire, swarm meks, and drop bombs.  Princess seems to be resolving moves and firing much more quickly since the .46 releases, too, especially on the large base missions.

Thanks for all the work you guys put in!

Liam's Ghost

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5531
  • Miss Chitty scoffs at your clan overlords
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #13 on: 29 November 2019, 16:20:05 »
The issue with the Barracuda has been fixed for the next release.  Not sure on the wasted armor.

I've been meaning to post a bug but haven't gotten around to it, but yeah, the maximum armor calculation is screwed up. The maximum armor tonnage is calculating correctly, but the maximum number of points allowed appears to be taking into account only the bonus SI armor from one facing, rather than all of them.

(also you can't actually build primitive jumpships with this version. The option doesn't appear on the splash page, and when you select it from the dropdown menu you get the standard large spacecraft instead)
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Hammer

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2165
    • MegaMek Website
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #14 on: 30 November 2019, 12:19:43 »
I've been meaning to post a bug but haven't gotten around to it, but yeah, the maximum armor calculation is screwed up. The maximum armor tonnage is calculating correctly, but the maximum number of points allowed appears to be taking into account only the bonus SI armor from one facing, rather than all of them.

(also you can't actually build primitive jumpships with this version. The option doesn't appear on the splash page, and when you select it from the dropdown menu you get the standard large spacecraft instead)
Bug reports opened HERE and HERE

edit:
We have fixes in for the next release.
« Last Edit: 30 November 2019, 14:06:40 by Hammer »
MegaMek Projects Wiki
Bug Trackers
MegaMek Tracker
MekHQ Tracker
MegaMekLab Tracker
New Units and RAT's aren't added until after the 2 month release moratorium is passed.


YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4319
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #15 on: 07 December 2019, 18:38:23 »
Is there some sort of GM mode? Looking at using MM to GM games with, mostly to make double-blind games manageable: my players would have the physical boards on the table, and I'd keep track of everything else on MM. I know I can have several "players" signed in so I can keep track everyone's movement and such. But I was wondering if there was anyway I could disable the rng? So I can let my players roll dice and just mark off damage on the computer? Thanks.

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

...oh gods, I just tried to imagine herding mimetic cats.
The Lyrans aren't losers.  They're...winning impaired.

Jayof9s

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2348
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #16 on: 07 December 2019, 18:46:00 »
MekHQ does, MM does not.

roman117

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Holdin' up the line at the kissin' booth
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #17 on: 08 December 2019, 00:04:44 »
Unsure if this is a bug or if I'm just misunderstanding the mechanics, but every single contract I'm getting is giving me NEGATIVE profit, at least -1,000,000 c-bills, all the way up to -20mil. I end up having to generate a bunch of contracts in GM mode just to find one that won't COST me money in the end but the only contracts I find that actually turn a profit only give a few million, usually only 1mil or even as low as 100k. The most I've gotten from a single contract so far (started 01/01/3025, currently in 3029) is 10mil from a 13 month garrison duty contract. Am I dumb or is this a bug?
« Last Edit: 08 December 2019, 00:06:22 by roman117 »


Words really can win wars. Especially when those words are missiles and lasers.

Sir Chaos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2075
  • Artillery Fanboy
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #18 on: 08 December 2019, 05:05:05 »
Unsure if this is a bug or if I'm just misunderstanding the mechanics, but every single contract I'm getting is giving me NEGATIVE profit, at least -1,000,000 c-bills, all the way up to -20mil. I end up having to generate a bunch of contracts in GM mode just to find one that won't COST me money in the end but the only contracts I find that actually turn a profit only give a few million, usually only 1mil or even as low as 100k. The most I've gotten from a single contract so far (started 01/01/3025, currently in 3029) is 10mil from a 13 month garrison duty contract. Am I dumb or is this a bug?

You´re referring to the profit MHQ predicts for that contract? That number has been weird for quite some time.
"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."
-Frederick the Great

"Ultima Ratio Regis" ("The Last Resort of the King")
- Inscription on cannon barrel, 18th century

pheonixstorm

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5122
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #19 on: 08 December 2019, 05:31:04 »
iirc that will greatly depend on which payment system you use. Unless it changed AtB defaults to the older FMMr rules (altered for AtB) which multiplies the values rather than adding them. So instead of x + Y + z = 4.6 you have X x Y x Z = 1.3. That final value is then multiplied by the units payroll. Haven't played in awhile so don't remember the exact specifics but that should be close.

If you are using the contract values for CamOps though... not sure what to tell you.

Also, there was a change in how the contract details were displayed so it should be a little easier to tell where or why the vale is a negative. Likely from including travel time to and from the contract target which you DONT get paid for in the FMMr rules.

roman117

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Holdin' up the line at the kissin' booth
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #20 on: 08 December 2019, 16:20:21 »
I'm using FMMr rules, so that would probably explain it. I notice that most of the cost comes from travel times, so I managed to get around it by mothballing my entire hangar during transit to a contract world then activating everything again when I arrive (and also going for contracts with 100% travel cost coverage). Haven't finished the contract yet, but I imagine that'll make a difference in the pay. It did say 'estimated profit' so it makes sense that it'd be off and take every possible factor into account to get the final number, regardless of player-created variables, like mothballing.


Words really can win wars. Especially when those words are missiles and lasers.

Jayof9s

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2348
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #21 on: 08 December 2019, 19:02:19 »
I'm using FMMr rules, so that would probably explain it.

FMMr pays ridiculously small amounts so if you're using the % based maintenance costs the only way you'll stay afloat is through selling salvage. Which you should be floating in honestly.

Even with the dirt cheap and basically negligible maintenance costs from FMMr you're likely losing money on travel as you noted. Again, you should more than make up for it with salvage, it just means you can't keep it all.

Iceweb

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 452
  • Lyran Engineer
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #22 on: 08 December 2019, 19:51:24 »
Can someone double check me on how much damage a machine gun should do to infantry? 

I thought machine guns were 2d6 and flamers were 4d6 but I might be dismembering. 

I had a Piranha open up on two units of field gunners in clear terrain.  Each time the burst weapon was changed from a value of 2 to a number between 1 and 5.  If they should do 2d6 like I thought getting a value of 1 should be impossible. 

If I was pressed for a guess since clan machine guns weigh a quarter of a ton and so do IS light mgs, it might be getting the two confused; which if I remember a light mg does do 1d6 to infantry.     

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11553
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #23 on: 08 December 2019, 19:56:25 »
Yes, IS Light MGs do only 1d6 to infantry...

Sir Chaos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2075
  • Artillery Fanboy
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #24 on: 09 December 2019, 07:43:54 »
Can someone double check me on how much damage a machine gun should do to infantry? 

I thought machine guns were 2d6 and flamers were 4d6 but I might be dismembering. 

I had a Piranha open up on two units of field gunners in clear terrain.  Each time the burst weapon was changed from a value of 2 to a number between 1 and 5.  If they should do 2d6 like I thought getting a value of 1 should be impossible. 

If I was pressed for a guess since clan machine guns weigh a quarter of a ton and so do IS light mgs, it might be getting the two confused; which if I remember a light mg does do 1d6 to infantry.     

IIRC field gunners are mechanized infantry, and those only take half damage from burst weapons (but double damage from non-burst weapons).
"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."
-Frederick the Great

"Ultima Ratio Regis" ("The Last Resort of the King")
- Inscription on cannon barrel, 18th century

Iceweb

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 452
  • Lyran Engineer
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #25 on: 09 December 2019, 12:16:59 »
IIRC field gunners are mechanized infantry, and those only take half damage from burst weapons (but double damage from non-burst weapons).
 

That explains it then. 
I guess I disagree with how megamek is displaying the report, hiding that divider, and not letting me see the results of my 2d6 roll.  But that is a minor quibble.

dgorsman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 608
Re: New Development Snapshot 0.47.2 for Megamek, MegaMekLab, and MekHQ
« Reply #26 on: 09 December 2019, 12:46:54 »
 Could someone please check on something for me?  I had a Mech on dry land, shooting at a Mech in depth 1 water, and it was missing the +1 to-hit penalty (damage was still correctly applied as partial cover).  I suspect the "higher unit ignores partial cover" rule is accidentally being applied here.  Shooting at a partially submerged Mech is still penalized, even if the shooter is on higher ground.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society