divefreak

No trouble here with the latest FFox on Win XP...

I think it could be done by cheating (eg a fast non detectable ship) but that detracts from the 'close to real' kind of doctrine that seems to make harpoon so kool. If planes had formations like everything else? or if we had 'dummy' units that could be picked up and plonked down? It all sounds a bit hard when what we have is still good even if not perfect. Don ASW Planes need some kind of search mission.... http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...&hl=pattern

It tried to fire 30 in the second shot, but there were only 10 left because of the mount design.... it fires 15 seconds of the ROF Amount. in this case 30 out of 120 shots....

looks good..... One of the message logs: And no side effects observed! Only the second time the number of shots reportet didn´t match the mount capacity. 40 out of 85 are AA rounds, ROF 120 (Oto SR) first time 30 rounds got fired, second time 10.

I did a series of tests on this topic. Attacker armed with 100 "testmissles" castrated Harpoon SSM with 0 DP due to magazine and mount desing firing salvos of 8 every minute. Defender: Modified F-124, F123, K130 1vs1 only the F-124 1vs3 in the center the F124, than F-123 most outside of the inner Ring, the K130 red and blue got some eh101 AEW to ensure sensor coverage. 1vs1 1vs3 Atack form long range Atack from medium range (within the Range of the ESSM) Weapons on the F-124 sortet from short range to long and vice versa..... Result: 1. Case Long range: It makes no difference how the weapons and mounts are sortet by range as long as the incomming SSM are out of Range of the medium range weapons. The weapon with the longest Range engages first. But when the SSM enters the Range of the Medium Range SAM, the sorting starts to influence the weapon handling. Sortet from long to short: the LR SAM engage until the mount is empty Sortet from short to long: the MR SAM engages as long as MR SAMs are availbe, siwthing back to LR-SAM in the case all MR-SAMs are used the number of ships did not influence the tests except in some cases (depending on Range) the Sea Sparrow on the F-123 did engage too 2. Case Medium Range the way the mounts and the weapons inside the mounts are sortet count! Sortet from long to short: the LR SAM engage until the mount is empty, than swithing to MR-SAMs Sortet from short to long: the MR SAM engages as long as MR SAMs are availbe, siwthing back to LR-SAM in the case all MR-SAMs are used the number of ships did not influence the tests except in some cases (depending on Range) the Sea Sparrow on the F-123 did engage too. If the sorting from short to long did influence the time needed to calculate the engagement could not be observed, but should bee there simply because more weapon calculation needs to be done... No idea if it might get significant in larger scens/ with larger groups! The setting light, normal, heavy did influence the number of SAMs fired vs a target, but the obverservations show that those number are not a hard rule! The oberservation showed a beahavior best described by: Setting x leads leads to y - z SAMs fired vs a target, with 0 =< z < y. But the player has no chance to understand why 2 incomming SSM are engaged by 3+1 SAM (example) and the next 2 are engaged by 4..... Range setting trough all tests was "optimum". My Conclusion: Sorting the AA Systems from short to long helps the AI getting closer to a more realistic Multi-Layyer AAW. It might increase the cpu load but it saves longer Ranged SAMs in cases the incomming SSM is getting closer to the defended group.... because the shorter ranged weapons are prefered due to sorting. And this is IMHO the more realistic behavior in real world AAW, chosing the best suited, shorter/as long as needed ranged SAM, instead of firing the longest ranged SAM all the time . (correct me if this assumption is wrong!) Comment: i did not test the beahaviour with faster SSM and i did not check for effects on the point defense behaviour!

Ok... so why not start with a general improvement? For both sides giving the self defense of each single Unit more weight over Area defense for a whole group..... this should eleminate situations where ships with full SAM loads get sunk, only because the longer ranged SAMs of another Ship (without change to hit within time) already engaged the incomming SSM. And as a side effect this would reduce the number of wasted long range SAMs. At a later Point manal control for the player could be tested... And the incomming SSM is not already engaged by a selfdefense SAM. added: the settings for light medium and heavy fire could IMHO be 2^0 for light, 2^1 for medium and 2^2 for heavy, assuming that it is normal practice to fire 2 SAMs on a single Target....

An old proposal from me: point defense automatic, Area defense manually controled by the player Wouldn't that give the computer too big a disadvantage? It needs to be 'both sides' and as such needs to be controlled by the AI. Why should it be a disatvandage when the code for Area and Point(self)defense got splittet? the AI controles the selfdefense for each unit. It checks if the incomming threat is aimed at a particular ship and when the missile gets within range of the point/self defense system (missile, gun, etc tagged/flagged as self/point defense) it will engage the incomming threat. if the incomming misile is not pointed at the ship, it wil be handelt as an Area defense case => (longer) ranged SAMs will engage, when the missile enters an intercept vector even when the ship carrying the SAMs is not the target... Both cases should be calculated independently... with the selfdefense calculation first, followed by the area calculation And for the second case the player gets the choice to engage or to hold fire and wait for the point/self defense, if he doesn´t want the AI to control the sams.... I don´t see there any (dis)advantage for any side...

An old proposal from me: point defense automatic, Area defense manually controled by the player

use an access2000 runtime instead.....

The mount will get a second/aditional engagement envelope. It will fire automatically in "self defense" Great!thanks for that did it help, change anything?

The mount will get a second/aditional engagement envelope. It will fire automatically in "self defense"

The german F-124 is rated as a FFG for political reasons, i think the very simliar LCF is a FFG for the same reason, they have nearly the firepower of a Kidd Class DDG and more power than the CF Adams, Decatur, Mitscher Class DDG...... So they are armed like DDG, why not use them as DDG? The F-124 was build as a replacement for the Lütjens DDG they serve as AAW Ships in the same role.

The Game has no "use in Selfdefense only option" but a "use in point defense cycle too" option this is switched on/off with the auto value on a mount, 1=on= use in point defence cycle too. Possible, but there are game saves around showing that SAMs refuse to fire even when the firing envelope matches the incomming target. French DDG with Mascura gets sunk with full SAM Load, while FF fires Sea Sparrow on the SSM on the way the the DDG.... regrds René

Try the same scen but change the "Auto"value for the Mk48 16 cell VLS RIM-7M from "0" to "1" in the Platform editor and try the same scen again.... Regards René

Hmmm 1 or 2 comments from a thumb marine engine mechanic..... normally paper oilfilter elements go down to 10microns.... most main stream filters are around 20 microns... bypaß oilfilter ever finer... those large engine should have a oil straining system with multiple stages.... commonly a mechanic separator first, then some finer stages until you come below 20 microns on the main stream + a low pressure bypass system that goes much finer down to 10 or 5 microns. Systems like the so called Trabold Bypassfilter goes even finer.... so normally it should be impossible to get so huge parts of 20 to 40 microns into the main bearings.... So from my limited point of view: the filtration system is not working due to miss-engineering or due to failed maintenance... regards René

I've been to Disney. This sounds more like a very sinister weapon rather than meaningful science. Right, so I shouldn't buy an Ipod 'cause we'll soon be able to buy our favourite music coded in the DNA of a virus that we self infect ourselves with and hear the music continously even when the boss is nagging about some cockup form last week? Sound good, where do I put my name down? Don. and music pirates who get illegal copys will die from those music bacterias? Sounds linke something the music industrie ist dreaming of for generations...

(active) Localizer/Ranging gives no detection.... see the attached files... simply let the blue ships run with sonar turned on. sonartest.zip sonarlog.zip

One I can do off the top of my head is HF (3D), that would be Height Finding, not High Frequency. Dipping sonar I think is self explanatory (dippers on helos and Osprey). Localiser/Ranging in the sonar routine is initially treated like a hull mounted sonar but without the baffles restriction. However it looks like the code is incomplete later in the routine. In sum I expect this type of sonar doesn't work, would be good to see some test results and files. Ok, HF changed to: |HF (3D) |Heigth Finder, a height finder is a type of 2-dimensional radar that measures altitude and direction of targets, but not their distance from the radar. |- Dipping changed to: |Dipping |Sonar used by Helos (Also V-22 Osprey) and Ships, lowered when in use. In the game helos use |dipping sonar only while hovering at vlow..... will test the localizer/ranging and i need an explanation what SPIR Radar does in the game code.... BTW Airborne Radar does it have a 360° covarage? or what is the difference between the SS/AS (airborne) flag vs AS/SS (360 degree) flag? Thanks René

Looks like i stumbled over an error and some missing infos... No Info About Dipping and localizer/ranging and HF(3d) seems to be wrong. dipping should be easy to fill. => Sonar used by Helos and Ships, lowered when in use. In the game helos use dipping sonar only while hovering at vlow..... But for the two other fields I need more info to fix it.... How is it working in the game?

The IADS won´t really work in HCE.... Last time i tried ading it to my db it refused to fire as SAM, only in SSM mode it really worked as intended... If you want to try the current behaviour here´s the file... http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showfile=24 Unit Name: Klasse 212 mod / FRG regards René

Hmm i buy your set of values from the first post for two reasons... 1. it looks as if i lost my sheet with the rules i used for creating Southamerican Airfileds 2. your rule feels familiar to those rules i remember without having my sheet...

Can´t find the file... but from memory it feels that you´re right. except the carrier aircraft. Large = something like an F14, medium something like F4, small A4 + Carrier capable flag the idea behind the different handling for carrier planes: the carriers have catapults and recovery(brake) gear, so they represent a much larger runway than they actually are. and due to the different sizes we can model their different size a carrier like the Ilustrious Class is a Vtol Carrier handle Harrier etc an WWII CVE is some kind of Stol or small Runway a WWII straight Carrier is a small carrier they can handle A4 etc and Prop planes post WW angeld deck = medium size (like Midway) they can handle F4, F8 etc a super carrier starting with the Forrestal Class = large they can handle F-14 and A5 Aircraft If a carrier could handle a specific plane that belongs to the next larger type, i normally downsize the specific plane instead of giving the carrier the next larger size

Hmm medium... sounds familiar... for my dbs... the official db has no medium value for planes or helicopters and no UAV PAD, the added values cause a bit strange looking data in the game for the runwaysize cause the values are hard coded into the game, but my addition works fine with no sideeffects for some years, except for the visual one VTOL ist really Vertical like Harrier.. I've got an exelsheet somewhere on some hd describing it....

Might be related to this here: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...36&hl=pason Far too wise AI units....

max usefull dp value for a weapon is 999, found this by try and error while creating my mine model long time ago, so maybee something changed until now.... over 999 you´re getting side effects and above 14336 or 18432 the dp value represents a payload for a weapon...