Shipwright Archive
Thread: Reverse Engineering of the 92.x Engine
Bannon9k wrote:
Well, I'm just curious if anyone has tried to reverse engineer their 92.x engine that they got from the missions. If so, how did it turn out?
Right now I'm in the process of trying to find some level 6 engines with low mass and low energy to mix with the 92.x engine. My hopes is to make it a really nice engine, even beyond what it is.
However, my main concern is after the RE it will loose its unique image. If it went back to the traditional image of the round engines on the x-wing, I'm not sure if it would be worth the RE...no matter how much better it got.
So basically....anyone REed this one yet...and if so....Specs, and image if you got it?
check this out:
And don't worry about the RE 'bug', it's irrelevant--the affected stats are ship-dependent, not engine dependent.
Message Edited by Acrod_Novys on 11-09-2004 06:44 AM
Acrod, you are mischaracterizing tyhe discussion. The "stats being discussed" were not the only stats downgraded. Stats that were expected in the final engines, were not what I saw in the final product. We've focused on three prominent stats in the discussion, but you'd be missing the tree for the forest if you were to characterize the entire discussion by those alone. Placing that engine in a ship, then pulling it out does not change the listed stats; they remain at 180/180/180, when they should have been 500/500/250.
Acrod_Novys wrote:
Bannon9k wrote:
Well, I'm just curious if anyone has tried to reverse engineer their 92.x engine that they got from the missions. If so, how did it turn out?
Right now I'm in the process of trying to find some level 6 engines with low mass and low energy to mix with the 92.x engine. My hopes is to make it a really nice engine, even beyond what it is.
However, my main concern is after the RE it will loose its unique image. If it went back to the traditional image of the round engines on the x-wing, I'm not sure if it would be worth the RE...no matter how much better it got.
So basically....anyone REed this one yet...and if so....Specs, and image if you got it?
check this out:
>92.xx Engine
And don't worry about the RE 'bug', it's irrelevant--the affected stats are ship-dependent, not engine dependent.
Message Edited by Acrod_Novys on 11-09-2004 06:44 AM
Iggep wrote:
Acrod, you are mischaracterizing tyhe discussion. The "stats being discussed" were not the only stats downgraded. Stats that were expected in the final engines, were not what I saw in the final product. We've focused on three prominent stats in the discussion, but you'd be missing the tree for the forest if you were to characterize the entire discussion by those alone. Placing that engine in a ship, then pulling it out does not change the listed stats; they remain at 180/180/180, when they should have been 500/500/250.
Hmmm... let me ask a few more things, to make sure I'm clear then.
what do you mean by "stats being discussed", precisely?
The 'three prominent stats' are pitch, yaw, and roll acceleration, correct?
You hadn't mentioned you placed them in a ship--I don't think. What ship did you place them in? If and only if you placed them in a ship which, when equipped with a different engine shows higher stats for the accel ratings, then I think you have a bug.
- Energy drain: 1546
- Mass: 9076
- Speed: 95.9
Still have the same style.
2. Anyone who HAS REed their 92.xx engine, Please tell me it kept the original graphics of the longer shaped engines, not the round tubular ones. Also, what parts did you use to RE it...all loot, or more quest engines just like it?
However, my main concern is after the RE it will loose its unique image. If it went back to the traditional image of the round engines on the x-wing, I'm not sure if it would be worth the RE...no matter how much better it got.
