Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MekHQ-0.50.0-SNAPSHOT: CamOps Transport Calculation Does Not Properly Factor in Transport Bays #4711

Closed
UlyssesSockdrawer opened this issue Aug 25, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@UlyssesSockdrawer
Copy link
Collaborator

UlyssesSockdrawer commented Aug 25, 2024

Environment

Version: MekHQ-0.50.0-SNAPSHOT
OS: Win11
Java: 17

Description

To test the new CamOps unit rating approach, I added an Overlord dropship to my force.

The Transport Capacity report shows that 36 bays are available, and 9 occupied. The unit reputation report shows a penalty for lack of transported meks.

image

image

Files

The Ramshackle Renegades30620207.cpnx.gz

@IllianiCBT

@IllianiCBT
Copy link
Collaborator

So there haven't been any changes made to the transport report, so I can't comment to that, however my immediate question is whether your Union is fully crewed, as if not you won't get the benefits of its bays.

@IllianiCBT
Copy link
Collaborator

It's also worth noting that Reputation only updates on Mondays, so any changes made won't be reflected until the following Monday.

@UlyssesSockdrawer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

image - fully crewed, used the Hire Minimum Complement action when I added it to the campaign.

I didn't know about the Monday thing - let me try flipping forwards a week quickly.

@UlyssesSockdrawer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

image

@IllianiCBT - yep, flipping forward to the next Monday updated the report.

Maybe some text in the report at the top to say it updates Mondays might help to avoid any future issue reports? I assumed it was dynamic like the Transport Capacity one.

@IllianiCBT
Copy link
Collaborator

It used to by dynamic, but that wasn't RAW and it wasn't remotely efficient in terms of processing.

Closing as not an issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants