🚀 NEW: Professional Traveller Ship Builder Tool - Free & Ready to Use!

[AnotherDilbert]

If I add a 250 Dton Docking Space with 5 50 Dt Cutters, I get:

I added five Cutters, but only get one:



I can then assign five Cutters to the docking space in the Cargo tab:

to get:


And in the Finalise tab I get:


Six Cutters in a docking space for five Cutters?


BTW, it should be 5 Docking Spaces of 50 Dt (55 Dt consumed) each, with 5 Cutters occupying one each.


It does not have to be more complicated than this:

Docking Space, Cutter, Quantity: 5, done.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Drop tanks:

We make a simple ship with 200 Dt hull, J-3, and M-2.


Add a 60 Dton drop tank:


Apparently it consumes 60 Dton internal tonnage.

The Finalise tab says:

Apparently it does not take external tonnage, making the total tonnage larger, decreasing drive performance...


The fuel tab refuses to reduce internal fuel tonnage or see that the drop tank satisfies the jump fuel requirement:

 

[MedievalSteve]

Fix

Building a Scout again (v0.1.3):

Jump drive:
The ship updates correctly, the bottom pane is correct, but the jump drive summary only shows half the drive.
View attachment 6075
View attachment 6076

Engineer requirement is wrong. It should be ∑(drives of ship + drives of carried craft)/35, round up (presumably), not minimum one per ship, small craft, and vehicle.


A Docking Clamp can carry ONE craft up to max tonnage, not an assortment of craft up to maximum tonnage.

I'll work on this one, however,
At this stage the carried craft system is not fully implemented - the system doesn't actually have any way of knowing how much the drive/power plant volume is of the carried craft.

I'll leave it as 1/craft for now. When I implement a proper system for adding fully detailed small craft / vehicles**, I'll update that calculation properly.

In the meantime, the user can adjust manually if they don't want the full "recommended" allocation.

** I do plan on doing this, and I have a working model for it in the 'add module' system, but it's quite a large implementation and I want to ensure I elminate other ship-breaking bugs before adding entirely new systems.

 

[MedievalSteve]

Rest assured, I am going through ALL of your feedback and am looking to implement it as soon as I can. I really do appreciate your help,

I have not had time this week to address everything you have raised so far, but I have made some fixes and improvements based on your feedback and issues I have observed:

v0.1.4Latest
January 16, 2025

Stateroom Auto-Assignment System​

New Feature
Automatic stateroom and living spaces allocation - automatically assigns accommodations for crew and passengers with configurable coverage percentage and manual override option

Bug Fix
Fixed drive calculation discrepancies between drive summary sections and footer - now uses centralized calculation functions for consistent values

Improvement
Removed "Available Space" field from drive and hull summary footers for cleaner UI

Bug Fix
Fixed input field validation issues - ship size, armor protection, and armor type selection now work correctly with proper validation and user control

Bug Fix
Fixed fuel tank and power plant auto-calculations - resolved multiple issues with fuel allocation, power calculations, and real-time updates when drives are added or modified

Bug Fix
Fixed app initialization and user progression issues - resolved crashes and UX problems that prevented users from starting ship design

Bug Fix
Fixed sensor and power plant cost calculations - resolved multiple calculation discrepancies including sensor cost scaling, power plant MCr conversion, and middleware execution order to ensure accurate header totals

Improvement
Enhanced display precision - improved cost and tonnage formatting to show 2 decimal places throughout the application for more accurate information display

Bug Fix
Fixed computer system calculations - corrected computer option costs in ship totals and Jump Control Specialisation (/bis) bandwidth reduction logic to properly apply only to the active primary computer

Improvement
Added contextual UI guidance - included helpful warning notes in Computer Selector to explain when backup computer options won't affect software calculations

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Safari 26.0.1:

Module Builder Starts ok.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

HG, p44:
This tonnage cannot include the bridge, power plant, drives or any structure or armour options.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Remaining tons: 99 tons after installing drives, power plant, and fuel?
No jump fuel, despite installed jump drive?

 

[ross]

Since small craft do not require staterooms can we have a "switch" that makes staterooms optional?

 

[MedievalSteve]

Since small craft do not require staterooms can we have a "switch" that makes staterooms optional?

Yes. The strangely named "Coverage" tick box (gonna change that to sau user overide, or something) allows you to manually change stateroom allocation.

 

[MedievalSteve]

HG, p44:
This tonnage cannot include the bridge, power plant, drives or any structure or armour options.

Yes, I allowed modules to have those options available, but intend to put them behind a 'allow rules to be broken' checkbox setting when I get back to the building of this part of the code.

Remaining tons: 99 tons after installing drives, power plant, and fuel?
No jump fuel, despite installed jump drive?

With all of the changes I've been making to the base ship builder, I'm not surprised the calculations in the module builder have broken. I'll add that to the list of things to fix, but I think it'll be easier to do once I've run through a full pass at of Ship Builder fixes.

 

[MedievalSteve]

As can be seen in the previous example the software likes to allocate a few thousand Dton into a 100 Dton ship. That is generally cured by going to the Fuel tab...

Is this still happening? Can you help me pin down exactly where this is occuring if it still is? I havn't been able to replicate it.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Is this still happening? Can you help me pin down exactly where this is occuring if it still is? I havn't been able to replicate it.

Edit: Just noticed I answered the wrong question...
Sorry, I have no idea if this happens in 0.1.4, as I can't run it.
In 0.1.3 it happened quite often, might have something to do with power plant allocation and hence fuel allocation.


This is about the uncaught exception:
Sadly, yes. Same in Brave browser. Same in Firefox Focus on iOS26. I probably have fairly restrictive privacy settings.

If I click Settings - Debug Panel, I get a blank page.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Brave gives:



Safari says:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Safari points to these points in the code:

 

[MedievalSteve]

Detachable Bridge:

Cost is wrong, presumably standard bridge cost +50%, based on size of ship not size of bridge. Size is questionable?
View attachment 6113


A Detachable Bridge is a bridge, we don't need a standard bridge in addition:
View attachment 6114
We should at least be able to deselect the standard bridge...

Better would be if the Detachable Bridge was an alternative in the Bridge tab.

I don't agree with this interpretation.

"Making a bridge detachable adds +50% to its cost"

The rules implication of this for me is that you can make any bridge type detachable as an additional option - I can have a "Smaller Bridge" that is also Detachable, I can have a "Command Bridge" that is also detachable.

I decide what bridge type I want, add 50% cost and 20% weight and now it is also detachable.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I don't agree with this interpretation.

"Making a bridge detachable adds +50% to its cost"

The rules implication of this for me is that you can make any bridge type detachable as an additional option - I can have a "Smaller Bridge" that is also Detachable, I can have a "Command Bridge" that is also detachable.

I decide what bridge type I want, add 50% cost and 20% weight and now it is also detachable.

This makes the most sense to me. It is like the difference between a rifle with an integral clip and a rifle with a removable clip. They are not separate rifles, one is just a modification of the other. Like a pilot seat in an airplane or an ejector seat, they are both the same size seat, but the ejector seat has some extra stuff. That is represented by an increase in cost and overall volume.

So, yeah, makes sense to me.

 

[MedievalSteve]

Small craft don't need staterooms by default:
View attachment 6130

View attachment 6131
Obviously I haven't allocated 9409 Dton fuel tanks...

Hmmm,
I'm having a lot of trouble pinning down where this runaway fuel addition is happening. I'll keep search, but if you could let me know at what point it suddenly appears at it would be really helpful.

 

[MedievalSteve]

I can't afford to specify reaction fuel in full hours, turns of 1/10 h would be more convenient.
There is no minimum specified, only a requirement per hour of use. Zero h is perfectly ok, if somewhat strange...
View attachment 6125
A Reaction Drive act as a High Burn Thruster: the thrust is added.
The Reaction drive may have Thrust 16 for a short while, but definitely not a full week (168 h).

Here we should have Thrust 25 for an hour...

"A Reaction Drive act as a High Burn Thruster: the thrust is added.": I do understand the use case you have presented, but that isn't how the rules in High Guard treats Reaction Drives. That is how they treat the Optional System - High Burn Thrusters (which I understand aren't properly working right at the moment but are on my list of bug-fixes to implement).

R-Drives as written are an alternative to M-Drives that use solid fuel, the calculations in the combat thrust section comes straight from Page 18 but it looks like they aren't calculating properly!
It should be 16 X 10 X 10 - It looks like I have accidentally added together all of the fuel tanks and made them available as thruster fuel, maybe? (that math doesnt explain it properly either, but it's something like that anyway - I'll sort it out).

I will reduce the minimum in the input box to allow fractional quantities and '0' as a valid quantity to allow more flexibility for smaller craft.

Let's build a cruiser (CL Valiant, HG p238)

View attachment 6132
It should be:View attachment 6133



It does not cost triple.
It does triple the cost of the sensor.
As a separate system, it costs double the sensor.

I'll double check this one, the calculation there should be REPLACING the cost of the existing sensors, not adding the cost in sensors step, then tripling it too. But I'll adjust so that it looks more like the summary example you showed me, with the original cost adding in the sensors step, then just the extra cost showing here.

 

[MedievalSteve]

Med Bays takes 4 Dton, MCr 2, and 1 Power:
View attachment 6135
View attachment 6136
View attachment 6137

Noted, programmer input error. Added to fix list.

 

[MedievalSteve]

The Safari/Brave error has been fixed as far as I can tell (I have accessed the ship builder with both of those browsers on my Mac).
Please let me know it it persists on your end.

I've also added a "Known Bugs List" tracker page, next to the changelog - that way you can check to be sure I haven't missed anything you've already reported to me.