Gunny

OK, thanks for the report Mark. I'll fix it soon.

FG

I think the issue is elsewhere. I'll try to see if it's not that comms issue that messes the whole thing up. What I'll do is that I'll remove the comms flags for the ASROC, and see how it works. But no worry on the poor results, even with Milas (an ASROCed Mu-90 Impact), which has greater chance to hit its target, the result isn't that bright... Doomed weapon?

FG

Mark, the list was pretty long. All the Spruances platforms, Japanese destroyer, and even Korean KDX-III.

FG

Were you turning the aft side at the sub or no? ASROC mounts have the limited to mount arc flag on.

FG

Thanks for the report Mark, but I need more info. Can you tell me the ship(s) involved? Many carry the ASROC, I corrected some, but I may have missed a few as well. I'lL also correct the text files.

BTW, any news about Sparrows' behavior?

FG

File Name: HUD4 v1.3.2

File Submitter: Gunny

File Submitted: 24 Nov 2012

File Category: Databases

The newest iteration of the HUD4. Adds new platforms and squashes a few issues

Click here to download this file

Not a problem, since all HUD4 versions follow each other. No platform is deleted, so that it doesn't cause any issue.

FG

Yes, it was the 10th beta of 1.1 that was included to yesterday's release.It should have been a 1.0, but I added a flag to the editor, and it messed things up for other persons, and since I was working already on 1.1, 1.1 became in fact the 1st public appearance of HUD4. As for numbers, it will be 1.1, 1.11, 1.12....

FG

Ralf,

I'll post here the sequel to HUD4 v1.1 as it is appearing in today's release. Work on what is in the release actually stopped in August; to allow 3.11 being published. But in fact, 1.11 was already in the pipes, with Mark and others' suggestions/fixes. What will be published here will be the beta for HUD4 v1.11. I hope, if I find some time, to do it by Sunday. Being currently kept busy at work, I'm struggling against time.

FG

Hi gents,

For those interested, I'll post an update of HUD4 in the upcoming days on this site.

FG

1) Am I correct that using this setting means an "attack" like a patrol or a strike does not result in the destruction of a unit but making it change sides when it has taken enough "damage," or does something else happen? And it only works if one is using certain weapons like paratroopers...I think it would count as a database error if one could "board" a ship with Harpoon missiles.

Boarding/Takeover missions don't imply a weapon is being used. It's in fact Game Engine (as opposed to DatBase) action, based on a boarding value for a ship or helo. Clearly, a raft will never board a destroyer...

2) How well does this work in ANW 3.10? Or do I need to wait for 3.11 to come out?

You can have an insight of how well it works in 3.11 with the latest beta files released and still working. It was a started feature in 3.10 so not very reliable, but now it works.

3) Could this be used against a submarine? (I'm thinking of scenarios where the idea is to force the submarine to surface to prove it was really in waters it had no right to be in.) I'm guessing the submarine would have to be on the surface to make this work--is there a way to do that? (That is, are there conditions under which a sub would surface if it was not already surfaced?)

Boarding only applies to ships and structures. I know I was able to sink a surfaced sub with a few 127mm rounds, but I doubt surfaced sub is considered as a ship by the game engine.

4) Any other comments or advice about using this setting for missions?

Strike missions will have more aggressive response than patrol missions. I suggest to be extremely selective in picking targets (one by one, not in a group), since the game engine will have some difficulties with a new feature that comes out.

FG

Quick message: this was a launching platform issue, missing the Laser designator as a sensor. Corrected for all MH-60 series.

FG

Mark, thanks for the report, I'll check this one as well. As for Mavericks, since there are plenty of versions with different sensors, can you tell which version(s) is (are) involved?

FG

Mark,

I know how impatient people can be. But I can't publish HUD4 v1.11 on which I work on a daily basis before Matrix decides to publish 3.11 and the associated HUD4 v1.1. I can hand 1.11 to AGSI, but I'm sure it would delay 3.11. So honestly, I can't post 1.11 here at harpgamer now. But it will be worth being waited for.

FG

DB updated. A new CDL-WDL link created for RUM-139 weapons, since the original ASROC had only a 5nm range. Range for the RUM-series is upgraded to 30nm to match weapons' range.

FG

Looks like VL ASROC follows the same logic. Updating DB now.

FG

Yes, the CDL stuff was seemingly the issue. Every weapon with a comm gear ending with WDL must have a launching platform with a corresponding comm gear ending with CDL.

FG

Mark,

I forgot to reply the 2nd part of your message. My plans are fairly simple: So far, we wait Matrix's decision to release 3.11, with HUD 1.1. Then, shortly after, I'll release HUD4 1.11 on which I'm currently working on. The releases will be rather frequent, but it will depend on my RL workload, and I expect it to be heavy from Monday until February, since I'm spearheading financial reforms in 3 different teaching complexes.

FG

No extra work... I've checked all ships using the Asroc mount. 42 in total. Most of them had no Asroc CDL as a comm, so it meant most would have been able to guide Asroc to its target. I dunno if you ever used Asroc in Harpoon, but if answer is no, then don't be surprised to see at first a missile icon that will turn then into a torpedo icon. An other thing I recommend is to have the AALog option turned "on". Sometimes, a "weapon status" file is generated, it explains which was the outcome of a weapon's use (hit, missed, ran out of fuel...). Useful to know if torpedoes really hit a target or get decoyed.

FG

Hi Mark,

I've found the issue. It's not in the weapons, but in the communications. Asroc has a comm called "Asroc WDL" that has a corresponding "Asroc CDL" on the ships. This means I will have to check all ships with Asroc mounts.

FG

Correction... it wasn't a flag, but a director issue... Missed the APG-65. Corrected and reversed the both illumination flags.

FG

I think I got the problem. I noticed that the Sparrows had 2 flags, I suspect these were antagonists: Illumination at Launch, Terminal illumination. Corrected in HUD4 v1.11.

FG

Mines obey a particular rule in Harpoon, they're considered as "weapons", not a "platform type" as aircrafts/ships or land structures are. Therefore, as long as there's no coding behaviour in Harpoon, mine warfare will be a matter of tweeks such as Mark brightly explained it.

FG

Mines are not operational at the moment, no improvement seen in 3.11, maybe in the future. As for now, only mine present in HUD4 is the Mk60 Captor, since it's not a real mine.

FG

Hi evaamo, your ideas are interesting. I need to explain some points however:

-all original scens are being converted from HUD3 to HUD4, it's a big process that consumes a lot of time, since the author of DB changed.

-Taitennek website will be updated when 3.11 comes out.

Regards,

FG