miller7219

I didn't try. I was afraid it was going to make a big mess! No big deal. I uninstalled HCE and then unzipped the behemoth Harpoon Ultimate Edition and installed the HCUE version.

Tony...Is there a way to update HCE 2009.050 to HCUE's 2009.097 standard?

Tony...I don't know how you feel about question relating to the "Ultimate Edition" here. If you are opposed just say. The version is 2009.050. Can you give any insight as to how that compares to your most current 2010.10 beta? Essentially, how "current" is the 2010.10 Ultimate version?

Tony...what types of enagagements are arc limited currently with .005?

Any chance you changed screen resolution or number of monitors? If so the window is just in a now invisible spot. After killing of the processes you can skip the whole uninstall/reinstall cycle and just reset the game options via http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=228 You know, I did change monitor resolution last week. I dropped down to 1024x768 to play Battleground Gettysburg (old Talonsoft game, available in a full set through Matrix, by the way) and those old Battleground games don't like any resolution higher. I didn't resolution-up after. That was probably it. I'll download the option rest from the link for future use. Thanks, Tony.

Patience, folks. We made some progress with the SAM engagement altitudes, arcs and point defense all at once last evening. The new GE just came out today, and we'll work on it as time allows. Sorry, Brad. I think we're finally on the verge of getting Harpoon to what we've all wanted to be for a long, long time! We're finally getting into the guts of the simulation and the core of traditional Harpoon values. Keep going, please. I'll be patient.

The window still pops up here the same way it always has. Buddha Don't know what caused that, but after I saw your post I assumed not everyone was having this problem. One thing I noticed is I unzipped .002 back into my HCE folder and it wouldn't overwrite .003...said file was in use. Tried to delete the .003 WINHARP.EXE manually and same thing...it's in use. HCE wasn't running, but according to Windows Task Manager I had 3 sessions of WINHARP.EXE running (that's what was locking the .exe file from deletion/overwrite)! I manually killed the 3 WINHARP.EXE session in Task Manager, uninstalled, rebooted, and reinstalled entire program from scratch and all is good now. That was wierd!

Tony....is there a coming solution for this? No easy way to get the weapon allocation window to display "out of arc" or something similar?...Like if a target is out of range, or not capable vs the target it will display that fact to the right of the weapon during weapon allocation (and not allow any weapons to be allocated, but I'be be happy with just displaying out of arc if that's all there could be) I played around with this and the program killing allocations out of arc seems to work well and intelligently. It's just a bit annoying to not know what weapons bear and which don't during weapon allocation.

I'm listing this here because I'm not sure if this behavior is on purpose, but when you click the "course" button to lay in new path for a group, no longer does the course window pop up. You know, the one with the new leg check box and the prev/next buttons so you can edit specific legs of the route? When you click the course button now you get nothing, but you can click on the group window and lay in new legs...one catch, I can't figure out how to end the legs. There's no finsih, or exit or done anywhere I can find. Load up any scenario, select a surface group and then click the course button. If it's a bug then we can move to the Issue Tracker.

See the issue tracker. We got a problem with port mounts engaging in point defense. Will someone else test out if they can get a gun mount with a port arc to engage point defense?

My vote is that the number of pops in point defense should be capped at 15. Pops=ROF/4 rounded down, with 1 being minimum and 15 being max.

I think we comprehend your argument. Just to clarify on point defense I don't see how any changes to surface gunnery have impacted point defense. The only crossover is if the mount is already too busy firing at surface targets, it won't re-task to intercept ASMs. Changes made to PointDefense under my watch: Corrected crossing modifier to be true if a missile does a terminal dive (aka SNAP_UP_DOWN). The original crossing qualifier used the TermTraj field which is unused and hence useless. Added limiting of point defense guns to altitude limits listed in DB, previous the guns could engage target at any altitude. As far as I can tell before me the next prior change was made in 1996 for Harpoon Classic 97. Tony from what I've observed, whatever gunnery changes were made (I think in occurred in 2008.024) changed gunnery behavior a great deal. Prior to, guns engaged a surface target 1 time every 30 seconds regardless of the number of tubes in database. That is they fired 1 point of ammo per mount (not per tube). I'm not sure that if a mount had 2 barrells if it actually got 2 chances to hit target with the listed PH and DP values, all I can tell you is it only reduced ammo by 1 regardless of tubes listed in database. Now, it fires (at least reduces ammo) by number in tubes field. The ROF field is per minute, but you have to times it by the number of tubes. For example: You want a mount with 2 tubes to fire every 30 seconds, you have to make the ROF 4. (60 sec / 30 sec = 2 x number of tubes (2) = 4. You want a mount with 3 tubes to fire every 20 seconds , you have to make ROF 9. (60 sec / 20 sec = 3 x number of tubes (3) = 9. At least all of the above seems to be true from all my tinkering! I actually like the formula described above, and I propose eo keep it. In my personal database I have all the ROF fields for gun mounts set to 2 x # of tubes....I like the guns engaging 1 time per 30 seconds, becuase the Harpoon Annexes PH and DP values for guns are based on a 30 second engagement. But, someone else may want to go more literal and set each mount to fire as it would in real life and adjust the PH and DP values in Harpoon Annexes proportioanlly. I think the current model gives a high degree of flexibilty and attention to user personal preference, which I know is something you and I have discussed is important. However, I think it broke point defense. Let's keep the "new" gunnery model, but fix point defense. I think the easy solution is to simpley hard code point defense gunnery to 1 pop per resolution, period. Ideally, though a new field could be added to database to allow the creator to tell the program how many pops per point defense resolution for the mount. Someone else raised the idea of multiple pops on other thread concerning point defense. We would just need a way to control how many in the database. Can anyone else share thier findings of how gunnery (surface and point defense) worked vs. how now works? Ideas??

To be clear, the reference to a 'kamikaze' issue has to do with changes to permit aircraft to effectively engage with their guns, and really nothing to do with trying to model the 'kamikazes' of WWII. They are not the same. I Understand, but wasn't code for kamikaze and "human guided" missiles added several patches ago? I would also think the changes to standard gunnery (that has effectivley broken point defense gunnery as is it was originally intened to be) was driven to a healthy degree by support for naval gun duels (unecessary for modern naval combat)? This discussion would be moot if we had out 2 seperate courses with Harpoon development. I;m just not happy that basic things are still broken or being broken by developement that is so far from the traditional roots of Harpoon. I'm all for a World Wars Harpoon, just not at the expense of Classic Harpoon!

Yeah, that's exactly why I prefer HCCE and not Harpoon ANW. I'm more intersted in modeling the Harpoon miniture paper game. I just want HCCE to finally work like it was intended. I'm not an advocate of adding new features when the simple basics (like point defense) need work. Nice GUI additions and new modeling (communications, ECM, etc) can wait until the basic parts are all covered as well as they were in the miniture game. Simple, but effective!

Let me be clear as to why I'm suggesting this. First, I'm a Harpoon traditionalist. I want nothing that is not Harpoon minutures-oriented in my Harpoon game! Now, I'm a team player and have accepted that over the years the code has passed through many, many companies and programmers that don't share my purist views. The reason I'm suggesting dual (amd seperate) projects is I'm quity frankly tired of reading about "kamikaze" code being broken on the forum of "Harpoon", while I'm staring at a picture at the top of the forum's window of a warship lobbing a Harpoon missile down range! Kamakaze whatever in the same breath of Harpon just just seems wrong to me and sacreligious (in a Harpoon-game kind of way of course!), sorry. I don't want to be a trouble-maker, but I suggest this only so we who want a pure Harpoon experience can get back to seriuos Harpoon classic de-bugging and development without offending the Harpoon "liberals" out there. That's exactly what I think has paralized the Harpoon communinty for so many years. We all think we got to play in the same sandbox. I think we can all have what we want, but it's just aint going to happen together in the same code and with the same people. There's a reason why the Democrats and Republicans don't hold their conventions in the same hall on the same day...