Re: Fighter question

[Jon Davis <davisje@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can review your scenario once you make the adjustments.

The developers also need to look at it file content for
redundancy.

Tony Christney wrote:

>Hi,
>
>You will have to set some extra parameters in the XML file to
>make FighterGroup objects work properly. Here is an example:
>
>         <FighterGroup id="1102">
>             <Position x="0.0" y="0.0"/>
>             <Heading heading="2"/>
>             <Race>New Anglian Confederation</Race>
>             <Type>Torpedo</Type>
>             <Count>6</Count>
>             <Endurance>0</Endurance>
>             <PilotQuality>Normal</PilotQuality>
>             <Carrier id="1100"/>
>			<OnBoard value="true"/>
>			<FighterBay id="20"/>
>         </FighterGroup>
>
>Note that some new child elements of the FighterGroup element are
>required for the FighterGroup to be considered on board the ship.
>The Carrier element has the single attribute id which must match
>the id attribute of the Ship that is its home Ship. The OnBoard
>element represents a boolean value to signify that the group is
>on board the ship. The FighterBay element is used to specify the
>id attribute of the FighterBay that the FighterGroup has landed in.
>
>Having just written this out for the first time, it looks like some
>redundancy needs to be removed. This may change by version 1.0...
>
>You may find that it will be easiest to keep the fighters in flight
>at the beginning of the scenario, but to add the Carrier element
>to allow the fighters to use the "Return Home" order.
>
>HTH,
>Tony C.
>
>
>On 19-Jan-06, at 4:47 PM, Eliot Hemingway wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I have a question as well about fighters: in scenario construction 
>>(XML file
>>editing), do ships that have fighter bays automatically carry fighters
>>unless told otherwise?  I have a scenario that I build last spring 
>>that has
>>been waiting for fighter rules, but it currently has all its fighters 
>>in
>>flight at the beginning of the scenario.
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>