Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fore/Aft Huge Ships #34

Open
ghost opened this issue Jun 10, 2017 · 5 comments
Open

Fore/Aft Huge Ships #34

ghost opened this issue Jun 10, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 10, 2017

About halfway through typing this up I noticed that my problem has already been addressed but the README_NAMES had not been updated to reflect it. So I guess this becomes a request to update said file... The original message is included below for no real reason other than it may mention a bug in YASB's implementation...

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
I'm working on adding epic support to my overlay generator and noticed a possible shortcoming. There are 2 huge ships that field 2 pilot cards to represent the fore and aft sections of the ship (cr90corvette, raiderclasscorvette). Per README_NAMES, each of these ships has a single pilot that is the same name as the ship.

YASB treats the fore and aft sections as 2 separate ships, but the generated xws has an inconsistency: cr90corvettefore and cr90corvetteaft both use the cr90corvette ship, but raiderclasscorvettefore and raiderclasscorvetteaft each have separate ships that match each pilot name.

I was leaning towards treating them as separate ships and making each one require the other to be valid.

@elistevens
Copy link
Owner

It's not clear what you're expecting to see in the README_NAMES that's not there. Can you please explain more explicitly?

@fab7431
Copy link
Collaborator

fab7431 commented Jun 11, 2017

Hi sirjorj,
I have the impression you relay to much on the implementation of multi-section ships on YASB.
On my side (http://x-wing.fabpsb.net), I implemented the multisection_id field.
I think that our implementation of this type of ship is not perfect as the titles and modifications should not be assigned to a specific sections but the ship as a whole.
I think we (YASB, Voistate, me and others) tried to do our best to implement that.

Find below an example, perhaps it will help you...

{"description":"","faction":"imperial","pilots":[{"name":null,"points":63,"ship":"raiderclasscorvette","multisection_id":0,"upgrades":{"hardpoint":["singleturbolasers"],"team":["ordnanceexperts"]}},{"name":null,"points":66,"ship":"raiderclasscorvette","multisection_id":0,"upgrades":{"crew":["emperorpalpatine"],"hardpoint":["singleturbolasers"]}}],"points":129,"vendor":{"fab":{"builder":"Fabs Squadrons generator","builder_link":"http://x-wing.fabpsb.net/","link":"http://x-wing.fabpsb.net/permalink?sq=e491h1i4e492d40h1"}},"version":"1.0.0"}

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jun 11, 2017

In the main README, the Multi-Section Huge Ships section gives an example:

{
"name": "cr90corvettefore",
"ship": "cr90corvette",
"multisection_id": 0,
"upgrades": {...}
},
{
"name": "cr90corvetteaft",
"ship": "cr90corvette",
"multisection_id": 0,
"upgrades": {...}
},

Yet in the README_NAMES file under CR-90 Pilots, it just has "cr90corvette" - not the -fore and -aft versions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. I thought the README_NAMES was an exhaustive list of all the xws strings, but the Multi-Section section in README has some names that are not in it.

Yeah, these multi-section ships are a headache, aren't they! :)

@elistevens
Copy link
Owner

Oh, I see. I believe you are correct, README_NAMES.md should list the fore/aft versions as the "pilots" for the multisection huge ships (what the example shows).

I probably won't get to this today, but I think that this should be a low-controversy change/clarification, so I'd be comfortable developing as if the change were already in.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jun 12, 2017

Right on. Thanks for the clarification!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants