Notice Canopy Integrity
I have to agree with that. I really don't see why they never used the full 30HP anyway... Why only use half of it in the first place?
It's a very odd way of doing things and is the reason why people are now getting very angry and confused on the forums.
While I suppose it's possible that he pre-3.4 UI was correctly mapping 15 out of 30 as 0%, that's (obviously) not how I was interpreting Frontier's statement, and I'm still not convinced it's the correct interpretation.
This wouldn't be the first time Frontier has had unclear changelogs or has actually not known how their game was really working.
I do thank you for the clarification though.
Now, does anyone have any screen shots or video of both the module pane and the advanced maintenance tab, pre-April Update, so we can see the discrepancy that was listed in the patch notes that was supposed to have been corrected?
Showing 62% in repair:
Last edited:
Well, it's not the first time the UI is showing incorrect info.
The G5 raw materials and the NAV panel showing that a starport has no appropriate landing pad for a large ship are still badly bugging me.
But i really have to ask, what if the repair screen was wrong and the modules UI was correct?
If not, it means that the perceived canopy weakness after patch is just imagination.
The G5 raw materials and the NAV panel showing that a starport has no appropriate landing pad for a large ship are still badly bugging me.
But i really have to ask, what if the repair screen was wrong and the modules UI was correct?
If not, it means that the perceived canopy weakness after patch is just imagination.
Thanks.
That certainly does imply the UI was mapping something above 0 integrity as 0%.
Also, that say's cockpit and not canopy. Cockpit could be showing a value that includes canopy but has a percentage of lots of things combined... So, for example, you could lose 50% of a foot, but the foot only makes up a small percentage of the entire leg.
Would still hurt like hell, though.
Would still hurt like hell, though.
Then we'd have canopies that went fron -15 to 0 integrity and broke at 0 the first time a stray fart hit them?
From some of the comments in these threads, you'd think that's what was happening, but cognitive bias an all.
I think I'll log in and find someone to shoot my ship in the face with a 100% breach chance weapon that does predictably pathetic damage (c1 cannon turret with high-yeild shell?) and take some measurements myself.
Game ain't exactly consistent with it's nomenclature, man.
It would seem there's some crazy interpretations of math here and indeed a discrepancy on how canopy HP is displayed. My bet is the 62% is actually 62.5% and it's just showing the integer part. With that assumption in place, the 25% displayed is "1/4 of the range from 100% to 50% remaining" which kinda makes it the true canopy health%, while the repair screen is showing "canopy at 62%" , where 50% = broken canopy.
Just saying, 25% out of 50 is 12.5. 50 + 12.5 = 62.5. I know, I know, crazy, but that's the only conspiracy theory I can come up with where the numbers 50%, 62% and 25% can even remotely line up.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Balls . I forgot about that. Shame!
Last edited:
I'm not even going to guess how the numbers shown in those examples were reached without more samples.
Without the sort of tests that would likely only seem necessary in hindsight, we are left with having to take Frontier's vague and occasionally contradictory statements at face value. This T-10 canopy integrity of 25, for example...or all these SLFs that still list 30.
i could use a real life patch for my health integrity...
I'm not sure I'm able to express it in the best possible way, but I could imaging the following scenario at FDev:
Dev A codes display_hp_percentage as
( canopy_current_hp - canopy_breach_hp ) / ( canopy_max_hp - canopy_breach_hp ) * 100 ,
while dev B codes display_hp_percentage somewhere else as
canopy_current_hp / canopy_max_hp * 100 .
Given the values
canopy_max_hp = 30,
canopy_breach_hp = 15,
canopy_current_hp = 18.75,
the first function would display 25% while the second would display 62% (assuming truncation from 62.5 for the GUI). The first function communicates that at 18.75hp you have 25% of the usable HP range (the range being 15hp from 30hp to 15hp) remaining, and at 0%, boom. The second function communicates that 18.75hp is 62.5% out of 30hp, and at 50%, boom. Do I agree this is how it should be done? Hell no! But it's the only way I can make any sense out of the figures. If it's not this, I'm at complete loss.
In the end, doesn't matter, I fly a Chieftain, I'm screwed no matter what...
Your CMDR just needs more hitscan weapons and an umbrella.