Not in the patch notes - canopy integrity halved.
- Thread starter moose666
- Start date
Interesting. That must mean that, effectively, the T-10 and dBX canopies have been strengthened, since they are at 25 and 30 respectively ?
I was thinking about that.
Or they get their rest day on another day of the week, for me that'd be fine considering more shops and bussinesses are open!
Maybe that's just confirmation bias. How often have you lost the canopy of your Vulture since the update?
The Vulture has always been notorious for canopy breaches.
make canopies a core internal with options like "lightweight glass" (standard), "reinforced glass" (tougher), "shielded" (even tougher, but takes a damage multiplier when unpowered) and finally just have one that encases the cockpit in plating and projects a holographic view onto it for the toughest protection of all - but you go blind if your sensors pack in.
No confirmation bias at all. Since February 2017, I've been flying my vulture only and for almost 2500h now, so I kinda know how and when it will break.
I believe there is an alternate explanation. See: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...opy-bug-was-spread-to-all-other-ships.510439/
My guess is that canopy damage was originally intended to have blowout be the midpoint of the damage possible and that canopy health could degrade further, maybe with loss of ship at 0%. Later they decided to make blowout the worst that could happen and have damage stop there at 50%. So the lower half of the range was never used. This change resets the range so the percentage can run down to 0% instead of stopping at 50%.
That would make sense. On the other hand, the Anaconda 1% bug exists since the release of the game...
Off topic, but I like how the post is labelled with a Dev Post indicator. Useful ! Thanks Brett (I assume).
Last edited:
Will's note is just wrong. Canopy would blow at 0% (as displayed by right hand panel), and we know this because we could AMFU the canopy as long as it was at least 1%.
What he probably meant to say is that the display of the canopy health was wrong, and that when true health was 50% (according to the internal tracking of the program) it would blow, but this was still displayed as 0% in the right hand panel.
This would match up with the numbers I noted in a bug report where I compared right panel and station advanced maintenance screens. However, that report was specific to a particular ship (chief) and I don't think it affected all ships.
I really don't think we have the full story, and even wonder if any dev him/herself actually has a 100% handle on this. There are too many anecdotal reports from combat pilots with thousands of hours in of canopies being particularly fragile since the patch (such as Hellfire85 just above), for me to feel comfortable about this.
My feeling is there was a bug in a few ships' canopy health display (notably the chief) and that this bug was fixed by halving the integrity while fixing the display but, and then this "fix" propagated the garbage canopy of the chief to all other ships.
Also, Will's note doesn't address why the T-10 and DBX have 25, and SLFs 30 integrity.
There's just not way there's not one or more bugs still sitting around, it's just a question of what exactly it(they) is(are).
As much as I hate grinding for yet even more materials, I'd get behind either one or both of these ideas.
Canopy. Transparency. I like it.
Uh, I'm guessing "no"?
Was it possible to repair a canopy that still had integrity before, even if the integrity had fallen below 50%?
Regardless, even if behavior is the same as before, please pass a long a suggestion to scale canopy in some fashion.
It's absurd that ships with larger/more exposed canopies, that are also intended for combat can only withstand the same damage as much smaller or less combat oriented vessels with proportionally less exposed canopies. An Eagle with a 15 integrity canopy makes sense. An Assault ship or Corvette bridge with the same does not.
Simply scaling canopy integrity to hull rating/hardness, or some fraction thereof, should be a quick and effective fix, for example. Canopy size and location still matter, as how often it gets hit wouldn't change, but ships that are built to take hull hits would also be able to take more hits to the canopy.
No one will ever buy Lakon ships again.
This whole thing doesn't make sense!
One can assume (i know rightly or wrongly) that the canopy is different for each ship, and it's integrity or rating at which it breaks is dependent on some assigned value. Additionally, one assumes that the canopy once it went beyond/below a certain threshold, broke, and then headed for complete failure.
The post above about 'it was meant to break at x do we divided x by 2 and set the integrity to that', smells of a 'quickie' to fix what is perceived to be a simple problem but is in fact a much deeper and more mathematical based formula/problem.
Imagine the President bullet proof car. It has glass that is pressured and rated to withstand x amount of velocity of force, before it cracks. Even at that point, the glass will withstand more hits of varying velocity and force before it finally caves in and reaches a point that it now if effectively useless.
What they're saying above is; the glass was rated to break at 50% but should have been 0 so they changed the effectiveness of the armour/canopy to half what it was.
A little math; The armour value is 100 with an integrity of 100. It is supposed to break at 0, but actually breaks at 50. So they changed the 100 to 50 so it now breaks at 0. Now, if there are any equations in their code that use both armour and integrity as a breaking point (which it should), the armour has been effectively reduced by 50%.
One can assume (i know rightly or wrongly) that the canopy is different for each ship, and it's integrity or rating at which it breaks is dependent on some assigned value. Additionally, one assumes that the canopy once it went beyond/below a certain threshold, broke, and then headed for complete failure.
The post above about 'it was meant to break at x do we divided x by 2 and set the integrity to that', smells of a 'quickie' to fix what is perceived to be a simple problem but is in fact a much deeper and more mathematical based formula/problem.
Imagine the President bullet proof car. It has glass that is pressured and rated to withstand x amount of velocity of force, before it cracks. Even at that point, the glass will withstand more hits of varying velocity and force before it finally caves in and reaches a point that it now if effectively useless.
What they're saying above is; the glass was rated to break at 50% but should have been 0 so they changed the effectiveness of the armour/canopy to half what it was.
A little math; The armour value is 100 with an integrity of 100. It is supposed to break at 0, but actually breaks at 50. So they changed the 100 to 50 so it now breaks at 0. Now, if there are any equations in their code that use both armour and integrity as a breaking point (which it should), the armour has been effectively reduced by 50%.
Armor only provides damage resistance (either via hardness or typed resistances) to modules, including the canopy.
If it was breaking at 50% before it should be functionally identical now, unless there was some sort of delay involved and it was possible to initiate a repair before it popped, which seems unlikely (though I thought I'd ask anyway).