Defect Tracking

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000130 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.024 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.025 Air group blocked in launchingPosted by broncepulido on 11 November 2015 - 10:28 AM Playing the Tesseract scenario by Brad (but probably it can apply to any other). Vietnamese Air Force in Da Nang IAP (AAa). Some Chinese long range missiles were fired at Da Nang at the scenario start. To prevent loses, I ordered to take-off the few Vietnamese planes present at Da Nang, in small groups. - Group BG000 composed by 2xSu-27MK2V with Intercept-2 loadout. - Group BH000 composed by 2xSu-27MK2V Flanker-F with Precis loadout.…

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000121 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.021 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.022 Scenarios previously in development don't keep ship and bases namesPosted by broncepulido on 18 October 2015 - 10:18 PM After retaking the old scenario building, the renamed bases and ships don't retain their customized names (with Control-+U, usually) and all the ships of the same class have received the first name in the list name of that class in both SE and GE (as example, in the HCDA all the deployed in the map civilian tankers of the British Esk class (group AJS) are named as British Wye, the first ship name …

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000118 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.017 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.020 Errour in SE splitting groups in Build 2015.017Posted by broncepulido on 05 October 2015 - 11:54 AM When splitting a surface group Windows errour alert and legend open (see attached file), after many attemps SE crashes, I think is a generic errour but undetected yet because few people building scenarios with the 2015.008+. Issue-118-Errour-in-SE-splitting-groups-in-Build-2015.017.pdf Harpoon error spliting groups.doc LATAKIA1.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000152 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - 0 Confirmed Version 2015.025 Fixed in Add New Magazine to dbPosted by eeustice on 24 May 2016 - 07:39 PM Anytime a new magazine is added to the db, the db Exports without a problem. When trying import same db a Runtime 3022 error occurs. The zip file includes the following: Copy of zipped good commandb.res file HCEEFDB-160524 Good pfData2005 file Good commandb.res file. Screen shots od Runtime error message Debug files from Access Current PE Version is 2015.025 Current SE Version is 2016.002 Current GE Version is 2016.003 The files provided are good files. All that is…

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000104 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.021 Error building scenarioPosted by broncepulido on 30 November 2014 - 12:24 AM I was building a big scenario when it fails to work both in GE and SE-32 (I've some previous copy). Is for the EC 2003 GIUK Gap Battleset and Standard HCDB 1980-2015. Can you open or play it? Any idea about the error? Issue-104-Error-building-scenario.pdf WWIII91.zip WWIII91-Fixed.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000136 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2015.027 Fixed in Weird sonar range graphics on display on Scenario EditorPosted by broncepulido on 18 December 2015 - 12:23 AM When clicking on "display" units to see the sonar range in the Scenario Editor (and only in the Scenario Editor), in each sonar type present in the unit you get the same weird range values, as showed in the attached file, and with the same absurd (left of the scale) range, and always with one fixed Convergence Zone. Issue-136-Weird-sonar-range-graphics-on-display-on-Scenario-Editor.pdf TEST WEIRD SONAR GRAPHICS IN SE 12-2015.…

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000103 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.021 Error setting nuclear releasePosted by broncepulido on 25 November 2014 - 12:14 PM When modifying the Brisbane Summit 2014 scenario a few minutes ago, I did get the attached error message when trying to change or add another time for the "Grant nuclear reléase" option (And I was expelled of the program each time, pulsing "ignore" or "retry"). Issue-103-Error-setting-nuclear-release.pdf Harpoon Test Error Grant Nuclear Release dialog.doc

Issue Information Issue ID #000106 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2014.019 Fixed in Ships traveling on landPosted by SteveF on 22 March 2015 - 01:23 AM Good morning! I've been playing Harpoon since about 1998 and have run into this issue for years. The Opfor see's my battle group and heads directly for my group even if it means traveling across dry land. Is there a fix that may be coming at some time? Thanks, Issue-106-Ships-traveling-on-land.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000206 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 90 – Not an Issue Version 2017.016 Fixed in 2017.016 2017.016 crash at startPosted by broncepulido on 08 December 2017 - 01:59 AM Regrettably, I see the same problems in 2017.016 after a while testing. Playing standard HCDB2 The Middle East. Error messages in attached file, crash at each scenario start, EXCEPT the very simple test scenario labeled yesterday as "GOOD", what is the only one working fine. A pity, but thanks Tony! Issue-206-2017-016-crash-at-start.pdf 1980-5 LEBANON.zip AL MADINAH ATTACK 2017-1.zip HARPOON TEST 2017-12-8.zip TEST RED SHIP NO CH…

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000056 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2009.097 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.008 SE - Add toggle AI force group path followingPosted by TonyE on 02 October 2013 - 11:06 AM This is for Brad He would like the ability to define in the SE whether AI groups should stay on their designed courses even when targets of opportunity arise. Currently surface and submarine groups will tear off after detected threats and never get back to their original course, greatly limiting the careful course plotting the scenario author laid out. The toggle will be per scenario and exposed somewhere in the SE's UI. At…

Issue Information Issue ID #000101 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2014.020 Fixed in ASW mortars and depth charges ASW attacks not workingPosted by broncepulido on 22 November 2014 - 04:23 AM If you play the attached test scenario (HCDB standard 1980-2015, EC 2003 Battleset GIUK Gap, Blue Side), sailing with the Swedish Tupper-class PG group with active sonar active and radiating on the marked course, detecting the three midget submarine targets, trying to shoot them with the ELMA ASW RL bow antisubmarine mortars to the submarine targets, and after surpassed the submarine targets trying to shoot them with the DC 4 rack…

Issue Information Issue ID #000183 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 90 – Not an Issue Version 2017.007 Fixed in 2017.007 Very slow game engine?Posted by broncepulido on 07 May 2017 - 03:40 PM I'm not sure, but think something strange on the Game Engine, playing the latest Patrick scenario, apparently not a big scenario, the game is going very slow, see attached file (Same with my Bubiyan scenario some days ago, also a small scenario). Middle East map. Issue-183-Very-slow-game-engine.pdf autosave1.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000111 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.004 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.008 Installations annex mismatchPosted by CV32 on 19 May 2015 - 03:13 AM GE does not appear to be drawing on the proper Installations annex info from the DB. Examples: EC2003 IOPG scenarios have some installations with names drawn from HCDA, not HCDB. EC2003 GIUK scenarios have some installations with names drawn from original stock DB, not HCDB. Other possibilities may exist. No savegame necessary. Just open any stock battleset scenario. Issue-111-Installations-annex-mismatch.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000063 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.102 Fixed in VTOL Tu-22MPosted by Grumble on 26 October 2013 - 12:55 PM Planes are ignoring runway size (in HDS8?). The very least AI formation patrols and scenario embedded strike missions do. Tu-22m bombers are based only at ZTa Bangalore, In HDS8 9.0, but the bombers were still harassing me after I reduced Bangalore runway size to VTOL-only with an antirunway mission. (showall) The two savefiles attached show the Backfires caught in the act. On the ground in the first, 5 minutes later airborne. ZTa also still has Su-27 and Mig-31 formation p…

Issue Information Issue ID #000181 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 90 – Not an Issue Version 2017.001 Fixed in HC Launcher UpdatePosted by eeustice on 27 February 2017 - 05:44 PM Just wanted to see what the new unit logging captures. When selecting the new Unit logging received the following message: Ignored Argument Unrecognized -I option unit ignored GHE still opens and everything works like it should. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Eric Issue-181-HC-Launcher-Update.pdf

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000114 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.007 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.008 Error renaming and reading bases in 2015.07Posted by broncepulido on 22 June 2015 - 12:38 PM In a in construction scenario I watched as the generic bases renamed have returned to generic names after HC2015.007 implemented. I've returned to HC2015.004 (I don't tested 005 to 006) and the renamed names are recovered. As example you can test in the attached LCS 2 scenario (is the standard issued scenario) as Fiery Cross Reef (ZXa) is reverted to Generic Small Airport. Is the same effect both in Game Engine and Sce…

Issue Information Issue ID #000077 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2014.010 Fixed in Mk2 Eagle Eye - 40nm visual detection of GBU/SDB/PGMPosted by Grumble on 15 July 2014 - 01:43 AM Linked to the Mk1 there is one other complication PGMs as Brad pointed out are supposed to be immune to AAM/SAM, they got very low RCS like the 6 for GBU-53 SDB II, to ensure this, but they are still being intercepted by AAM and SAM. Most GBUs have "High" max altitude and so these fly to target on High, I guess they are detected visually, as per 5.4.2. Radar log shows that radar detection is indeed impossible, in the first detection cycle…

Issue Information Issue ID #000158 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 90 – Not an Issue Version 2016.007 Fixed in Game Engine errour changing altitudePosted by broncepulido on 14 August 2016 - 07:25 AM Demo scenario to be played in the GIUK Battleset, 1980-2016 standard database. I did take-off with 2xF-35 from the Blue Base (launched with orders to attack Red Base). When trying to change height from Low to Very Low, errour messange and Game Engine stops (tested many times). When in other essay I did lauch 2xF-35 in patrol (with the idea of after they reach patrol point change height to very low and attack Red Base), almost immediantly launche…

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000095 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.021 Variable Start Points in New SEPosted by eeustice on 25 October 2014 - 03:52 PM When selecting Variable Start Points in the Orders 2 Drop down menu all scenario variable start points are visible. Attached is a screen shot and the scenario file. The db is the same as in my last Issue Report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Eric Issue-095-Variable-Start-Points-in-New-SE.pdf Variable Start Points.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000082 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Asssigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2014.013 Fixed in Window DetailPosted by eeustice on 20 August 2014 - 08:09 PM Window Detail box not aligned with data in the new SE, Attached is a screen shot of the box. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, E Issue-82-Window-Detail.pdf Window Detail.zip