I'm very frustrated. Attempts to follow the normal support channels seems to be getting me no where, except frustrated.

I know, I know, Catalyst is the worst company on the planet for errata. I naively thought that perhaps Hero Lab would be different.

I opened a trouble ticket with Lone Wolf in February of this year regarding an incorrect interpretation of a rule within the program. I provided several examples. I posted in their forums where other users have chimed in supporting my interpretation. I have followed up with them diligently, once a month since being told they are seeking clarification from Catalyst.

I am mad. I am a paying customer with a legitimate bug and it is not be addressed in anything resembling a reasonable time frame.

Given the following rules:

I created the following: A small drone has a sensor capacity of 5. That could be filled as follows:
[1] Atmospheric Sensor R3
[1] Motion Sensor
[2] Laser Microphone R6
[1] Camera R6: [2] Ultrasound, [1] Low-Light, [1] Vision Magnification, [2] Select sound Filter R2

The program does not allow this. Am I just misunderstanding the rule?

Anyone else have similar results trying to get support?

They have quite to the contrary been exemplary so far. Odd.

I´d say your setup is valid.

Select Sound Filter is not a vision enhancement. Could that be kicking back an error?

As cameras also capture sound (as per the reference above), I find no rule stating that it cannot be upgraded as such. Even if that upgrade was ruled invalid, that is not the primary issue.

The program error is that it counts sensor enhancements to the camera against the sensor capacity of the drone, rather than the rating of the camera. The developers hold that to be their interpretation of sensor capacity.

That is also how everybody else interprets the sensor/camera capacity issue. I'd say you have a legitimate complaint. I'm going to assume you tried this build without the Select Sound filter just to be sure that wasn't the issue but if you haven't, try it and see.

To be clear, I've tried it, opened a ticket and emailed the developers. They simply refuse to accept the common interpretation of the rule here.

From SR4a, page 334, "Each sensor package also has a Capacity rating; the total Capacity rating of the individual sensors may not exceed the package’s Capacity rating." The people at Hero Labs have a hard time understanding that enhancements isn't even mentioned there? Wonder how they'd be able to explain a modern camcorder, a handheld sensor with a camera, microphone, vision magnification (zoom) and vision enhancement (representing a "steady-cam" feature)?

Unfortunately I don't use this program, and am glad as I know I would've slammed face first into this same wall long ago. Then again, maybe a few more voices on the matter might get Hero Labs to change their mind about how the players interpret the rules here.

I guess they interpret this to refer to the free Capacity offered by sensors, so for example a package with Capacity 6 would be filled by a R. 4 Camera (4 free Capacity) and a R 2 Microphone (2 free Capacity). While this interpretation might sound plausible at the first glance, many sensors do not have any "enhancement Capacity", therefore the rule obviously refers to the [x] Capacity all sensors have.


RE the secondary question question about audio enhancements in a camera, to me "Cameras may also be up-graded with vision enhancements " means they can ONLY take vision enhancements and no audio enhancers or cyberlimb upgrades
Fluff explanation: The sound pickup in the camera is a cheap integrated thing, if you want something better which can also accept upgrades, you need to install an external microphone.

First, thanks for replying. I'm not really sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with my stated interpretation here...?

This really isn't a sticking point for me. The rules do not say ONLY, but I could easily accept that the statement of regarding vision enhancements means to infer that audio enhancements cannot be added to the camera.

My sticking point is that sensor enhancements are being counted against sensor capacity.

I agree with the interpretation of you and basically everybody else (otherwise Hardwire's drones would need some serious reworking...), but was trying to figure out how Hero Labs arrived at their -- faulty -- interpretation.

You actually answered your own question with this quote:
(bold is mine)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the problem isn't just about the audio enhancement on the camera. It sounds like Hero Lab is also preventing him from putting the visual enhancements on the camera.

I don't use Hero Lab, so I can't really help. But it sounds like they are having a little trouble with the idea of the Sensor Capacity. The rule for sensors is just a restatement of the way capacity works, at least that's how most people interpret it. The capacity of the individual sensors should not count against the capacity of the sensor package as well...

Yes, please, thank you.
The audio seems to be distracting from the core conversation.

Why would a sensor have a capacity if not to be used, hmmmm? This sounds like the folks at HeroLabs are peddling a broken product - and, shamefully enough, actually charge you money for it - while, of course, Chummer is both free and updated regularly by people who play the game and read Dumpshock.

From what RJ wrote, it sounds more like they are genuinely convinced that how their software currently works is the correct exegesis.

To make matters worse "I was informed that a clarification with Catalyst was forthcoming on this". The last time I know of that CGL "clarified" something in HL, it was this.

Wonder if people who bought this last year will get the upgrade to SR5 or if it's a completely separate purchase.

I fully understand your frustration. This and their interpretation on cyberlimbs have made me skip Herolab in favor of Chummer.

Got me curious now, how does HL do cyberlimbs differently?

They do not allow Cyberlimb armor to apply at all unless it is a Called Shot against said Cyberlimb.

LOL, good think i haven't bother with their piece of shit program.
But that is an extremely weird one, theres no rules to back that up and i'm pretty sure thats not how the devs rule it to work.

Yes, silly, considering the brief printing about cyberlimb armor doesn't expressly state this. Of course, having an armored cyberfoot adding to your overall B/I values is also silly...

And what if a character was crazy enough to get a full replacement of every cyberlimb, including torso & skull, and armor each to the max of 4?

You have 24 points of Cyberarmor and you are a beast. *shrug*

True, but the question intended was does HL recognize that you are such an armored beast, or only apply a 4/4 armor bonus after everything is so cybered?

Ahhh, Sorry.

No worries.

Well...
1) It was stated by the devs back then that 24 points of armor from cyberlimbs is considered acceptable because of taking up that much capacity/ressources. I agree with that because:
2) A dp of ~40 for damage resistance is not invincible mode. Unless your campaign lets you get that armor and everyone else is still restricted to heavy pistols.

Not to mention that such a character has a hard time getting additional IPs, making her a rather mediocre combatant.

On top of being easily noticed and remembered in social situations, yes. She goes in the van with the other (much more squishy) combat drones, and waits for taking the punishment. There are more proactive ways of playing the tank.

Nothing wrong with adding a few points if you have the capacity to spare, so this should be made to work.

And this wasn't intended to bring up the feasibility of such an armored character, but how those backing Hero Lab would rule the armor of such a character (+4/+4 or +24/+24?). Remember, their ruling is that cyberlimb armor doesn't apply at all unless you're taking a called shot.

So, if I take a round in the torso, but it wasn't a called shot, I don't get the +4/+4 cyberarmor; and if it was a called shot, I do? What?

Yes, according to this:

That's even worse than the SR3 System, where Cyber-Limb-Armor was averaged across the whole body O.o
And high Armor-Pools ain't worth as much, if you convert high physical to high stun damage, because you need to soak the stun damage still, with a much shorter track, right?

This is my biggest gripe. In addition to the formatting errors that still linger, I expected that the program would follow the rules and that an error such as this (the devs not understanding a rule) would be resolved pretty quickly.

At this point, I vote with my money and will not buy anymore add ons/future additions. Programs like Chummer or even my word document character sheets at least get the rules right (in my case, enhancements vs sensor capacity) and display all the text I enter for details.

Good choice I say, Redjack.

Yup. Though you've given me an idea on a character. Will have to dive into the books to check on feasibility.

* LINK *
In the interest of circling back on this, it appears a couple of weeks ago this came back into the queue and the official word came down as we all expected so an update is somewhere in the works.

So they still haven't noticed cameras can capture still photos, video, trideo, and sound? Or that vision enhancements aren't stand alone sensors? Hmm.

JMH's reply seems to imply that as well. I have no words.

Unfortunately, playing whack-a-mole is sometimes the only way to make the corrections that are needed.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm still grousing about a BattleTech ruling made my Randall Bills many years ago (before CBT) over a rule interpretation that made a few of my 'mech designs non-legal yet are customary & common modifications made to real-life vehicles (modding to have a bigger engine).

(I wanted to put an engine into a 'mech that by the formulas would have given it a 3.25 hex walking speed. The bigger engine would have held more heat sinks which was the purpose of the design. By my own question, I noted this would be held to a 3 hex walk and 5 hex run for the purpose of gameplay. He stated that doing so was illegal according to the rules and never gave a page citation despite the rules being silent on that point even through the current edition nowadays.)

Not trying to mess things up, promise. Does JMH not say "yes, you can get more sensors by installing a camera that has sensor slots on it´s own", making the setup in your OP totally legal?

That is exactly what should happen IMO, so I either don´t get the wording or the problem.

Two things leave me wanting more.
- First: I was home for a more definitive response rather than one that read to me like he was acquiescing.
- Second: As I read the various rules, I take that senor capacity and sensor {enhancement} capacity are not quite the same thing; the list of sensors and sensor enhancements are not the same. This potentially leads us to yet another problem if they are treated as synonymous. i.e. if adding a R6 camera to a drone wit a sensor capacity of 5 yields a drone with a capacity of (5 - 1 + 6). A more definitive response would insure no further misunderstandings.

Am I happy a change that *appears* to support RAW is in the works? Absolutely.

Thanks for clarifying.

1.) I´ll take it. Wouldn´t have liked to wait for the next erratum.
2.) Yes, not the same, and both the English and the German wordings are clear on that. My post was worded badly, but is fortunately not in print