Re: Repair Priorities
 

This is wierd! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I did a couple of tests in 1.84 with a standard non-modded game.

I built a space yard ship with Space yard1 (3 repair ability).

Then I constructed 9 destroyers with one (1) of each of the following components in this order:
a) Master Computer3
b) Shield Generator1
c) Ion Engine3
d) Meson BLaster1
e) Armor1
f) Scanner Jammer
g) Cargo Bay1
h) Fighter Bay1
i) Supply Storage1

The Repair Priority is standard with the normal settings as set out above, although Construction, Colonizing and Miscellaneous were not used for ease of use [normally they would be g), h) and i)]

I did two tests. In each test, I substituted one of the above components with three of the same, but of a different rating (e.g. 1 Supply Storage1 with 3 Supply Storage3)

In the first test, I substituted all the following components for all the ships in this order of entry.

Destroyer #9 on the ship list had supply changed
Destroyer #8 on the ship list had fighter bay changed.
Destroyer #7 etc.
6
5
4
3
2
Destroyer #1 on the ship list had the master computer changed to bridge/life support/crew quarters.

Then

On each consecutive turn these components were [EDIT] repaired.
1) Turn 1 Vehicle
2) Turn 2 Shields
3) Turn 3 Cargo <====wierd
4) Turn 4 Engines
5) Turn 5 Supply <==== wierd
6) Turn 6 Weapons
7) Turn 7 Armor
8) Turn 8 Sensors
9) Turn 9 Unit Launch

In test 2, I substituted the following components for all the ships in this order of entry.

Destroyer #1 on the ship list had supply changed
Destroyer #2 on the ship list had fighter bay changed.
Destroyer #3 etc.
6
5
4
3
2
Destroyer #9 on the ship list had the master computer changed to bridge/life support/crew quarters.

Then

On each consecutive turn these components were [EDIT repaired].
1) Turn 1 Supply <====wierd
2) Turn 2 Unit Launch <====wierd
3) Turn 3 Engines
4) Turn 4 Cargo <====wierd
5) Turn 5 Vehicle
6) Turn 6 Sensors
7) Turn 7 Armor
8) Turn 8 Weapons
9) Turn 9 Shields

Maybe you guys can make some sense of this, because I sure can't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Even eliminating the wierd entries, the components do not follow exactly the order of the Repair Priority setting. Not only that, in the Last test, the repairs seem to be more in line with the reverse of the Repair Priority setting.

[ February 12, 2003, 00:20: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: Repair Priorities
 

tbontob, did you run exact same test more then once?
I'd be interested to see if the results are the smqae each time the test runs.

Re: Repair Priorities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Baron, I am sorry to say I haven't

It takes a while to set everything up as you can imagine.

On the plus side, I was very careful when I ran these two tests.

And documented everything, so anyone else could perform the same test if they want to. Same results will say one thing. Different results would say either I made a mistake, the other person made a mistake, we did the test somewhat differently or some other factor is operating of which we are not aware.

EDIT: Verifiability is a part of science which is why I provided the parameters so anyone else could try to verify it if they wanted to.

"smqae" = same?

[ February 12, 2003, 13:26: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: Repair Priorities
 

My own guess on this is the order in which ships are repaired depends on when they are built. Then it repairs that ship, using the component repair list to decide which components get fixed first, and then any leftover repair capacity goes to the next ship.

Re: Repair Priorities
 

It fixes the oldest ship first? lol

Polish that turd, we may want to **** it again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: Repair Priorities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm.

That could be Sinapus.

If it is a factor, I don't think it is the whole story, as the the numbers of the ships are the numbers given to them in the order when they were produced by the computer (one per turn).

There is something going on that we seem to be missing.

[ February 13, 2003, 01:11: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: Repair Priorities
 

Someone mentioned that the ships are repaird in order of their listing.

Looking carefully at the results of the tests, there would seem to be some a great deal of truth in this. But something else seems to be influencing the selection.

Re: Repair Priorities
 

RANT
This is really begining to piss me off.
I want to have boarding parties repaired first. I changed the general type from weapons to misc in the components file. And I have misc listed first on the priority list. The capture ship is much older than the captured derelict. The capture ship was also the first one on the list in the info box. By all rights, it should have been repaired first. it wasn't. If the priorities list don't work, why have it in the game. if modding the component type don't work, why even have that modding choice available. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif makes me wonder what else in the game is there that don't work the way it should.
/RANT

Re: Repair Priorities
 

After reading through all this, I'm not so sure anymore, but I think if you have more than one vehicle capable of making repairs, each will start repairing a different ship. I've noticed that often two damaged ships will both have some of their components repaired and not one with all repaired and the other just a few repaired.

Re: Repair Priorities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On occasion, I have notice that too, but never paid it much attention. I just passed it off as having screwed up somewhere. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But even assuming each repair facility/ship does repair different ships, they should still repair in the order of the Repair Priority list. In other words, if there are two repair facility/ships, they should at least start the repairs of two ships that are on the top of the list (as we interpret it) instead of just one.

But as the anecdotal evidence given in this thread and my test suggests, this isn't taking place, either in the multiple repairs or in serial repairs.

There is something in our interpretation of the Repair Priority list which is at variance with the results.