[COMPILATION] Final Mod Pack (FMP)

[gaise]

Hi folks probably in the wrong section who can i get to look at my save file? also where would I find it? The Plasma weapons do not seem to be unlocking and I wanted to make someone aware of the possible bug. Thanks

[Ascadix]

v2.1 -> sprite pb

Hi,

It seems that sprites for "Gauss weapons" and "Railgun" are inverted in v2.1

[Solarius Scorch]

v2.1 -> sprite pb

Hi,

It seems that sprites for "Gauss weapons" and "Railgun" are inverted in v2.1

Yes, it was a change in concept, following a similar theme in X-Com Files.

[Rodg88]

Is there a link for older version of TFM, so I can use the last OSX build which uses nightly 3/21/18? Or would TFM v2.1 *mostly* work with 3/21/18?

[Solarius Scorch]

Is there a link for older version of TFM, so I can use the last OSX build which uses nightly 3/21/18? Or would TFM v2.1 *mostly* work with 3/21/18?

Any changes between the versions are unlikely to be an issue, since there were no significant changes over the past months.

[Pipfan]

I can't seem to get FMP to work with HQSounds anymore, has the most recent update borked compatibility? Trying to load with both enabled crashes before I get to the main menu.

[Antan]

I wanted to ask what is the use of the initial vanilla Interceptor Cannon? The range is 10m and you cannot get close enough to any craft to use it without taking dmg or even being destroyed. I have always thought it should have some kind of use but unless I just cannot see it the thing is utterly useless.

Clearly Avalanche missiles and even Stingray are way better and totally viable. Lastly an idea. Why is there not an improved version of the basic missiles? It seems like there should be a progression there up to the more powerful advanced weapons. A better Avalanche with either better range if possible or at least greater carrying capacity.

Same for stingray. Or at least a mid range missile that combines the two. Something. Just a thought.

Or alloy missiles, Elerium missiles? Just some ideas.

[hairybert]

I appreciate a lot playing FMP with its approach to keep the flair of the game close to the original.

However, there is one thing which I don't like:

The battle maps are much more cramped than it used to be in the venerable game from the 90s.
That's fine for terror missions which ought to be painful, but when shooting down an ufo over arctic terrain just to see dozends of hills, each with a cave and several tunnels in it (how realistic is that??), I wistfully think back to the open battles on flat arctic terrain of the original game.
Or you shoot down an ufo in the middle of Africa and then you wonder how your Skyranger managed to land in a spot completely surrounded by winding two-story "farm" buildings with flower gardens and whatever. I mean, take a random spot in the middle of Africa, what is the chance that you will encounter only a single building nearby, let alone the luxury gardens and TV devices etc.

The addition of new map tiles is fine and welcome, but it should be made sure that the balance open-vs-cramped tiles is not changed too much.

[Tekamthi]

I appreciate a lot playing FMP with its approach to keep the flair of the game close to the original.

However, there is one thing which I don't like:

Or you shoot down an ufo in the middle of Africa and then you wonder how your Skyranger managed to land in a spot completely surrounded by winding two-story "farm" buildings with flower gardens and whatever. I mean, take a random spot in the middle of Africa, what is the chance that you will encounter only a single building nearby, let alone the luxury gardens and TV devices etc.

The addition of new map tiles is fine and welcome, but it should be made sure that the balance open-vs-cramped tiles is not changed too much.

Agreed on this point in general.. I havent noticed the issue in connection to any geography necessarily, and I love the added mission variety overall, but sometimes the maps are indeed a little odd in connection to the ufo/crash that started them.. i've shot down several "UFO"s, or chased and raided "landed" ships, only to find a hybrid or MiB fortress of some kind with no craft or crash or damage whatsoever in sight.. I've let these scenarios stretch my imagination to accept that somehow these UFO's were full of pre-fab building parts or something, and the ship themselves dismantled/destroyed before my arrival.  The missions themselves are generally fun; I'd be happier, though, if these maps were tweaked in some way, maybe made bigger to also include the ship or wreckage itself.. or to spawn as fixed landing sites only, or some other indicator rather than as "UFO"s, if that were possible.

[Solarius Scorch]

Sorry for the brevity, writing from work:
1. The interceptor cannon is exactly the same as in vanilla, so you should rather ask Gollop. But I am using it a lot, to avoid blowing small UFOs to pieces. And it's super cheap.
2. I get the complaint about the terrains, though TBH nobody has ever complained about this before, so I paid no attention to it. Should I decrease probability of these dense terrains?
3. These missions with MiB and Hybrids should not have UFOs at all, it was simply the only way to implement them. I believe it's possible to do it more elegantly now; I should have a look.

[Tekamthi]

2. I get the complaint about the terrains, though TBH nobody has ever complained about this before, so I paid no attention to it. Should I decrease probability of these dense terrains?

I generally enjoy these fwiw; it would be cool if the chance of buildings increased/decrease based on some assessment of how populated the area is (distance from nearest city?), but I understand this might be a lot of work under the hood here.

3. These missions with MiB and Hybrids should not have UFOs at all, it was simply the only way to implement them. I believe it's possible to do it more elegantly now; I should have a look.

if they could appear as just "landed" for the entirety of their existence on the geoscape, or with an indicator like the terror missions, this might "fit" better with what they are up close.  As it is, sometimes they seem to appear this way (or maybe my radar just doesn't pick them up), but sometimes they fly around and have to be shot down/chased & raided.

[F.E.K.]

Agreed on this point in general.. I havent noticed the issue in connection to any geography necessarily, and I love the added mission variety overall, but sometimes the maps are indeed a little odd in connection to the ufo/crash that started them.. i've shot down several "UFO"s, or chased and raided "landed" ships, only to find a hybrid or MiB fortress of some kind with no craft or crash or damage whatsoever in sight.. I've let these scenarios stretch my imagination to accept that somehow these UFO's were full of pre-fab building parts or something, and the ship themselves dismantled/destroyed before my arrival.  The missions themselves are generally fun; I'd be happier, though, if these maps were tweaked in some way, maybe made bigger to also include the ship or wreckage itself.. or to spawn as fixed landing sites only, or some other indicator rather than as "UFO"s, if that were possible.

MiB directive: Deploy the troops, and the craft fly away... (or self destruct the damaged ship) 

[Solarius Scorch]

OK, for now I fixed hybrid convoys. The rest will be... much more involved.

And I made sure special terrain is picked less (and thus be more special!).

I'll see what else I can improve and will release - hopefully soon.

[Antan]

1. The interceptor cannon is exactly the same as in vanilla, so you should rather ask Gollop. But I am using it a lot, to avoid blowing small UFOs to pieces. And it's super cheap.

This really didn't answer my question. I do not understand the Cannon that is default equipped from the start of the game on an Interceptor. The range is 10m. If I try to get that close to even a small craft my Interceptor is damaged. No fighter pilot would close that range unless absolutely necessary especially if he has a better alternative like missiles.

There is no reason to use the Cannon is my point. The range is crap and puts your fighter at risk from day one. Clearly the game is designed not to really be a shootout  so early on, unless you like taking on targets you cannot handle. If my fighters are going down or being damaged and cannot fly from the first couple of UFOs then that becomes a real problem.

So I equip missiles and sell my Cannons. I would love to see the basic Cannon get more love so its useful is my point. It just doesn't seem to fit in. I will do a save and try a few set ups with Stingray and Cannon combos but I just don't see the point of this weapon. Its mute.

What do you mean by "blowing UFOs to pieces" I thought that no matter the weapon when shooting down a UFO there was a 75% chance any power source would blow no matter the weapon you used. Has this piece of data changed now to be dependent on the weapon type used? Clearly bullets would do less overall dmg than an explosion. Can you clarify?

I am grateful for the pack it makes Xcom even better than the patched original by a long shot. Lizards in suits? Really?

[hairybert]

And I made sure special terrain is picked less (and thus be more special!).

Sounds good!
Maybe it would also be nice to add some open tiles to the additional terrain, for more balance. Like soft hills of low height. Mountains *without* cave in it. Open landscape only with a tiny shed on it. Grassland with a small pond. etc.