View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000096 | FSSCP | user interface | public | 2004-02-07 08:41 | 2004-03-06 00:19 |
| Reporter | CP5670 | Assigned To | Goober5000 | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | trivial | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Summary | 0000096: Loadout screen weapon count indicator maxes out at 999 | ||||
| Description | If the quantity of a weapon type in the selection pool is greater than 999, the weapon count indicator in the loadout screen still shows 999. This is only a problem with the displayed number; the game internally supports over 999 of a weapon type without any problems. This is especially noticeable for Tempests; I tend to put 2000 of these in the loadout pool because fighters can carry so many of them at once, but the loadout number keeps showing 999. This concerns the 01_20_2004 build but occurs in all versions. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
So? |
|
|
uh, so the displayed number should show the true weapon count and not 999. :p Hardly a blocker, but I would still class it as a very minor bug. |
|
|
I wouldn't even classify this as a bug. You have to draw the line somewhere. Suppose we add space for four digits... then someone will come along and want it bumped to five digits. We'll have to change the interface art and positioning to make room. It's something I don't think is worth messing with. |
|
|
Well that's a strange line of reasoning; you might as well say the same about the increased shield icon or ships.tbl filesize limits. :p I wouldn't have mentioned this at all if the Tempests did not use so little cargo space, but since they do, there is a very practical reason for bumping it by one digit. There is definitely enough room for adding at least one more digit there without making any changes to the interface. Anyway, if the loadout number goes beyond the appropriate limits, then it is the mission designer's fault, but the capability should be there. Since bumping the number up should be fairly straightforward, I can't see how it is any better to leave it in its current state instead of having the possibility of the number spilling into something. edited on: 02-12-04 00:51 |
|
|
Bumped to 9999. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-02-07 08:41 | CP5670 | New Issue | |
| 2004-02-09 19:35 | Goober5000 | Note Added: 0000167 | |
| 2004-02-12 04:32 | CP5670 | Note Added: 0000190 | |
| 2004-02-12 05:02 | Goober5000 | Note Added: 0000191 | |
| 2004-02-12 05:02 | Goober5000 | Status | new => assigned |
| 2004-02-12 05:02 | Goober5000 | Assigned To | => Goober5000 |
| 2004-02-12 05:44 | CP5670 | Note Added: 0000193 | |
| 2004-02-12 05:45 | CP5670 | Note Edited: 0000193 | |
| 2004-02-12 05:51 | CP5670 | Note Edited: 0000193 | |
| 2004-03-06 00:19 | Goober5000 | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2004-03-06 00:19 | Goober5000 | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2004-03-06 00:19 | Goober5000 | Note Added: 0000328 |