1768 replies to this topic

[toaster79]

Best recource I found, quite helpful.

[1stBEAST]

@smurfynet:
would be cool to have the possibility to add a prefix/name for a build

[Mazgazine1]

Hello Smurfy, can you update the stalker 5M, it looks like they added the extra missle room to fire all SRM 6's at once from the left torso.

I was definitely happy of the change woohoo!

[smurfynet]

1stBEAST, on 11 January 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

@smurfynet:
would be cool to have the possibility to add a prefix/name for a build

i thought about that, i think i will add a feature like that, but the prefix/name will be only for you. (mechbay related).
this will allow you to better differentiate between your mechs without having problems with f*ckt up names, which everybody could see

Mazgazine1, on 11 January 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

Hello Smurfy, can you update the stalker 5M, it looks like they added the extra missle room to fire all SRM 6's at once from the left torso

i guess you mean the missiletube count, yes i'm also thinking that there is something wrong. and i try to write down the missile tube count by hand. (counting the visible tubes) and then comparing the data with in game, current count and logic.

-
smurfy

[Amenton]

I would pay money for an app on my ipad for this......think about it......

[Grey Ghost]

Only if smurfynet considers one for my Android tablet first...

[repete]

Firstly, thank you very much for your work on this.

EDIT: Upon reflection, I think I've realised that if the total number of heat sinks is red, this is telling you that you don't have enough heat sinks, so I think this answers the point about being told if you don't have enough. Thanks again.

Edited by repete, 12 January 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[Tuku]

A sugestion...

-Add the in game heatscale bar back in (Along side the percentage not in place of it. maybe make it an option to use either or)
-Ad checkboxes/togles for Speed Tweak, Cool run/Heat Containment, and Elite cool run/heat containment.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tuku, on 13 January 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

-Add the in game heatscale bar back in (Along side the percentage not in place of it. maybe make it an option to use either or)

The in-game mechlab heat efficiency bar is misleading and useless, why would you want it back? I ask out of curiosity.

[smurfynet]

Tuku, on 13 January 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

-Ad checkboxes/togles for Speed Tweak, Cool run/Heat Containment, and Elite cool run/heat containment.

Speed tweak speed is already present, coolrun/heat containment will be added soon. (need some thinking and programming)

majora incarnate, on 13 January 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

The in-game mechlab heat efficiency bar is misleading and useless, why would you want it back? I ask out of curiosity.

i thought the same. also the formula is quite stupid and hard to implement without adding tons of static values.

[AndyHill]

Well it might be useful for comparison purposes. I would, however, suggest just rebuilding the existing setups in the online mechlab for comparisons. A formula that calculates stuff incorrectly just isn't useful.

[Wintersdark]

Bad Brad Keselowski, on 10 January 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

When you can answer both questions with yes, there's a high probability, that I am correct and the D-DC and K variant have 10 tubes less than in the smurfynet Mechlab. (It would also mean a Catapult C4 has at least 30 tubes per arm, I tried a LRM15x2/LRM15x2 yesterday, they were fired all at once).

The tube limitation is only applied per weapon. So, 15 launch tubes could fire 3 LRM 15 launchers simultaneously, but would volleyfire a single LRM20.

[smurfynet]

Wintersdark, on 14 January 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

The tube limitation is only applied per weapon. So, 15 launch tubes could fire 3 LRM 15 launchers simultaneously, but would volleyfire a single LRM20.

i have to test this aswell, blark and i have most of the mech variants combined so we can test.

AndyHill, on 14 January 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

A formula that calculates stuff incorrectly just isn't useful.

this was the main reason i removed it, its just to much work maintaining a stupid stat which tells you nothing. and the easy formula i previously used is not 1:1 like in game.



I also working with high prio on an in detail stats for dmg and heat for the mechlab. But i don't know if i get it ready for todays site update (with the spider stats and another stats/mechlab unrelated feature)

[Mar Helmer]

The Stalkers have the wrong minimum engine size. It should be 170, not 100.

[smurfynet]

Mar Helmer, on 15 January 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

The Stalkers have the wrong minimum engine size. It should be 170, not 100.

based on the gamefiles its 100, in fact its 80 but only 100 is buyable.
I also checked it in game recently and its correct.
did you check it in game or why do you believe its 170?

[3rdworld]

smurfynet, on 15 January 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

based on the gamefiles its 100, in fact its 80 but only 100 is buyable.
I also checked it in game recently and its correct.
did you check it in game or why do you believe its 170?

chassis weight x 2 is the min. (unless its under 100 of course).

[smurfynet]

Stalker: http://postimage.org/image/crmot3w2f/

Sorry if TT rules say otherwise but in MWO its possible.

Anyway here the update:

• Added Spider to Mechbay
  
• Combined Front and Rear Armor Display to the Torso
  
• Added ugly Component Details info for most items
  
• Fix for drag and drop on mobile devices (mechlab should work on ipad and co)
  
• Added list of available maps with image, pois and real out of bounds area

[ArcDemon]

The component details is a good touch (especially useful for engines, knowing heatsink numbers is crucial). I think the only ugly thing is that the stats aren't lined up yet, and that 'every stat must go inside a circle/rectangle' motif might be running out of steam.

The front and rear armor looks more polished now, though from a sample size of 1 (me) it is a big confusing. Even after you figure out what the /x numbers actually represent and why it is constantly changing it still seems a bit awkward. You can see how much you can maximize one of them, but it takes even more mental math then before to figure out how you want to calibrate them both. One alternative would be a single 'maximum' and a single 'available' like the in game mechlab. The maximum never changes, and the available shows the total available for the front and back combined.

Also a small suggestion for components with front and rear armor - when you click [+] to increase armor and you reach the maximum for combined front and rear, could it start subtracting from the other side (front or rear) rather then requiring a [-] click followed by a [+] click for every point of armor you want to rebalance (yes you could use the manual entry in the sidebar, but clicking is easier for experimenting).

[smurfynet]

ArcDemon, on 15 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

The component details is a good touch (especially useful for engines, knowing heatsink numbers is crucial). I think the only ugly thing is that the stats aren't lined up yet, and that 'every stat must go inside a circle/rectangle' motif might be running out of steam.

yep i added them in a hurry, one hour before the update , thats why i wrote ugly tooltips in my changelog. i will rearrange them a bit and possible add some colors aswell.

ArcDemon, on 15 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

...Armor remarks and suggestion..

Yea im not 100% happy with that either.
a while back someone suggested combining the values. but also display the max armor. (which i did not yet). not sure, what i will do, but i think i tweak it a bit.

about your suggestion yea, that could be usefull, but maybe also confusing . i try out how it looks.

[Butane9000]

Hey I just started using your mech lab and it's really good. But your math is off in regards to some of the upgrades. I ported over a build I use in MW:O on my Cataphract but it's off by .2 tons.

Here's a link for it. All it appears you need do is adjust your Ferro-Fibrous and regular armor math.