I don't really buy this "canopy always broke at 50% integrity". I remember having my canopy under 50% in at least 2 occasions, badly cracked but still holding.
The MathS works. But it the reality is there's no change for a player. Either way it pops when it loses 15. It's really justa cosmetic change if anything. The number will read 0% instead of 50%. That's all it is really.
after losing my canopy, the modul tab showed always 0% not 50%
Hence why I assume it was a recent addition. Typically, FDev have released a totally unclear, garbled message causing nothing but confusion and have proven incapable of offering clarity. It's genuinely embarrassing now. I don't get tge impression Will understands the situation either.
That doesn't tell us anything. It's just text, the value behind that text could be anything.i found an old video that shows the 0%
after losing my canopy, the modul tab showed always 0% not 50%
did you mean "Capish"Capice?
That doesn't mean it broke at 0% or wouldn't have broken at 50%.
The evidence needed to convincingly contradict Frontier's statements would be video or screens of a canopy that is both still intact and below 50% integrity.
true, I'm still looking for video/screenshot that's show the canopy below 50%
edit: and i found one!
Source: https://youtu.be/KdYB3la4374?t=725
Timestamp: 12:05
That test simply shows that a canopy is treated as an internal for breach chances. A weapon that doesn't breach does all it's damage to the hull. Against a ship with full hull the breach chance of a rail is 40%. If that breach is successful you see that ( ) 'internal damage' status icon and the module being hit takes ~95% of the rails damage (they have extremely high portion of breach damage, which sometimes confuses people because a hit to a module often means it does virtually no apparent hull damage).
Any successful hit to a 15 integrity canopy that has no MRP mitigating damage with a C2 railgun will pop it because a C2 railgun does more than 40 damage a shot and even if you've got ~60% thermic and kinetic resists, that still enough to destroy it outright.
I'm certain that I repaired canopies from less than 50% many times, and that there was at least one (possibly 2) pre failure crack that could appear.
I wonder if the cracks would first appear at 50% rather than it being a total failure at that point, and possibly once the cracks appeared it could rng fail.
So your saying one rail gun shot can be enough to break the canopy and that's how fdev intended it?
Your knowledge/memory of that part is better than mine o7Cracks definitely appeared before 50% before and there could be at least two stages of cracking before failure.
Yes. Had it happen plenty of times, long before the current change. With more standard hull resistances, a medium rail gun is perfectly capable of doing more than 30 damage to a module in one shot.
Cracks definitely appeared before 50% before and there could be at least two stages of cracking before failure.
Interesting point, not to mention that percentage changes as mentioned don't really tell us much, example maybe it was like:I think they described the problem wrong, using percentages to describe issue hasn't helped.
If it broke once it went down by 15 points to 15, and never went any lower........ then.... changing to 15 to get to 0 makes sense.
But explaining it in percentage terms makes the math not work.
Are we experiencing quick canopy breakage since change?
Straight up yes or no question, FDev: Do canopies now have fewer effective hit points than they used to?
Hello everyone,
We just wanted to bring awareness to a post that was made on this thread here regarding the integrity of the canopy following the launch of the April Update.
Prior to the April Update, the canopy used to break when it was at 50% integrity, however, we have fixed this so it correctly breaks at 0% integrity bringing it in line with all the other modules. Therefore, to maintain the canopy’s current functionality, we halved its integrity. This means that the canopy should be reacting in the same way as before the April Update.
We’ve tested internally and found this to be the case, however, if there are any instances where you are seeing an issue, please let us know.