Jump to content

IssueMigrator1

Members
  • Posts

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

IssueMigrator1's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000007 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2009.050 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.070 Planes on Carrier math problemPosted by broncepulido on 06 January 2013 - 02:09 AM I was in the modelling phase of a scenario with the old CVB-43 USS Coral Sea of the Cold War DB, with a nominal 137 (small and old) planes capacity. When I essay to load the first type of plane in the Scenario Editor, I saw the indication of maximum number of planes=65417 !!!!!!!! I say OK, but it's loaded only one plane !!! Testing with some numbers (1, 136, 137, 138, 255,256, 257, 1000, 10000) the outcome is ever the same, one plane loaded !! Issue-007-Planes-on-Carrier-math-problem.pdf
  2. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000010 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2009.075 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.076 GE Main Window doesn't remember sizePosted by TonyE on 05 March 2013 - 09:33 PM I have not implemented the saving and restoring of the main window size since I turned off the Maximize upon game launch setting. This is a reminder to set up the saving and restoring of size and checking for whether the previous size is still valid (thanks to changed font dpi, monitor resolution changes, change in # or positioning of monitors) Issue-010-GE-Main-Window-doesn't-remember-size.pdf
  3. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000025 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2009.082 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.083 Visual detection by deep subPosted by Grumble on 30 June 2013 - 02:29 AM : To Go 13:07:38:30 New contact: ZYS Slava: Slava from AHU Birmingham at a bearing of 250 degrees and a range of 39 nm Method: VISUAL Probably related to the fix in 082 Tony pointed out as: - Chg:B176 GE A platform with sonar of type active only could not detect anything. This has been fixed but the fix impacts all types of detections so thorough testing would be good. This is a larger problem as well affecting all detections. The code uses unit->emit (unit has this sensor type) and unit->detect (unit can be detected by this sensor type) inconsistently. The issue is reproducible with the HDS2 5.0 save game file attached, at To Go 13:07:38:30 AH000 SSN Birmingham (deep) detects ZY005 CG Slava. The detection is consistent with 082, does not occur with 076. Issue-025-Visual-detection-by-deep-sub.pdf deepvisual.zip VisualSonar.zip
  4. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000013 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2008.050 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.082 Can't fire ASuW at surfaced subPosted by mavfin on 05 April 2013 - 08:23 PM GE is 2009.076. Attached file is original GIUK, scenario 3. Is this caused by the old DB, or a GE issue? Under 30 miles from the US surface group is a heavily damaged Tango on the surface. However, if I try to attack with surface ships, I get the choice of Standoff ASW or Short Range ASW. No choice of missiles. Soon as a helo takes off, I'll have a hard radar lock, and should be able to finish it off. I've had other instances of this, and could air-launch antiship missiles to finish the job, but not from surface. (I'm running through GiUK scens in preparation for rewrites to CDB. Sort of re-familiarizing myself with them.) Made another test scenario, for EC2003 this time. CDB is most current. Parked a Tango at one point of a triangle. Parked a Tico Block 1 at 20 miles one direction. (No Standoff ASW, seeing if presence of it makes a diff.) Put a Spruance with Asroc at 20 miles another direction. Put a couple Seahawks on the Tico. Launched Seahawk to illuminate. Ctrl-Alt-s and forced Tango to surface. Tried attacking with ships, still asked about Standoff ASW on both ships. Took off with Seahawk armed with Hellfire. Had to manually get within range, then could fire Hellfires at sub and sink it. Issue-009-AI-Gunnery-Doesn't-Adhere-to-ROF.pdf SufraceGunTest.zip Guntest1.zip GUNTEST3.zip
  5. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000009 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2009.050 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.082 AI Gunnery Doesn't Adhere to ROFPosted by miller7219 on 05 March 2013 - 07:19 PM AI gunnery continually fires non-stop until either it runs out of ammo or target is sunk. Player gunnery adheres to the ROF properly. The AI wins every surface-to-surface gunnery duel in very quick fashion! I tested with 2009.074 too, and same result. I recall that I noticed this a few years back, but never got around to reporting it. Effectively surface-to-surface gunnery is broken unless the AI can be fixed to play fair.
  6. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000012 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2008.050 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.082 Low Level Light - IR Ship Flags Working?Posted by miller7219 on 06 March 2013 - 08:22 PM The Low Level Light (LLL) flag may be over-reaching with it's detection distance. Is the IR even working? When I ran the attached test scenario is was nighttime. You'll have to use my homemade database to run the attached test scenario (using EC2003 GIUK Battleset). 1. Play Blue and crank the time compression up to 5 mins. You'll get a detection at 21nm....if it's nighttime (haven't tested during daylight). Both Blue and Red are "Large" height so according to Harpoon paper rules the visual horizon would be 19nm for Large vs Large. Seems LLL might be overreaching by a couple of miles. LLL wasn't part of the original Harpoon paper rules as far as I can tell, so not sure if even the visual horizon of 19nm would be too far for a LLL sighting??? Debate! 2. Open attached database and change the Des Moines' flags. Delete LLL flag and add the IR flag. Save and export database. Re-start scenario as #1 above. Assuming the scenario is during nighttime again, you'll get detection at 7NM. According to Harpoon paper rules I read it as IR sensors should have a 20nm range up to visual horizon. Is the IR flag working? 3. Open attached database and change the Des Moines' flags. Delete IR flag. Save and export database. Re-start scenario as #1 above. Assuming the scenario is during nighttime again, you'll get detection at 7NM. So, with OR without the IR flag you get a 7nm detection. Proof the IR flag doesn't work? Could be a visual horizon issue, or maybe the LLL and/or IR flags are broken, or all of the above?? And then again I could be broken and I'm just missing something and all works as intended Interestingly enough, I made a quick scenario using HDS III GIUK Battleset and got a 19nm detection. I have no way to know if the 2 ships I used had the IR and/or LLL flags since I can't open that Battleset's database. Issue-012-Low-Level-Light-IR-Ship-FlagsWorking.pdf LLL_IR_Test.zip IR Test#1.zip IRTest2.zip
  7. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000059 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2009.099 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.101 Base Name Changes on its OwnPosted by eeustice on 11 October 2013 - 07:28 PM In updates 2009.098-100 Kadena AB, USA changes names after inserted into WesPac Scenario 9.0 The Backyard. If you create a new base from the default blank screen the base name is ok. Problem does not exist in the 2009.096 SE release. Attached are screen shots of the different releases and a screen with the base added in the default screen by it self. Please let me know if you have any questions. I would like to know if it would be possible to have the # base runways in the description of the base be added in the SE. The # of runways is present in the GE. Thanks, Eric Issue-059-Base-Name-Changes-on-its-Own.pdf Kedena AB USA.zip
  8. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000066 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2009.102 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.001 Bearing Only TASM AttackPosted by eeustice on 03 April 2014 - 06:00 PM Westpac Battle set default Harpoon db. When launching a TASM or any other type of missile at a bearing only contact the TASM is shot down by your own TG or hits a ship in your own TG sinking your ship. I have seen this with air launched weapons. Attached is the test scenario and saved game just as the SAM is launched at the TASM (TASM2.0022) and the file 1 min before the launch (TASM2-0021). The scenario file name is TASM3 Please let me know if you need any additional info. Thanks Guys! Eric Issue-066-Bearing-Only-TASM-Attack.pdf TASM2.0021.zip
  9. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000072 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2014.008 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.009 Another overflow computing damage points?Posted by broncepulido on 21 May 2014 - 08:34 AM Two images of two damage outcomes running "Submarines Galore 2014!!!" (see adjunt file): In the first image, firing a Mk48 Mod 5 ADCAP (1988+) torpedo from SSN Hartford against an SSN Akula-class (K-317 Pantera). In my personal DB the Mk48 Mod 5 ADCAP has 105 damage points against a sub (and 209 against a surface ship). The Akula has 138 damage points. But the dialog Window about the impact reads Akula "hit 1 times for 30105 DP" !!! In the second image, firing a Mk48 Mod 4M (2004+) torpedo from a Dutch SS Zeeleeuw against an SSN Sierra II-class (B-275 Kostroma). In my personal DB the Mk48 Mod 4M has 95 damage points against a sub (and 190 against a surface ship). The Sierra II has 141 damage points. And the dialog Window show Sierra II with a more normal comment: "hit 1 times for 232 DP". Issue-072-Another-overflow-computing-damage-points.pdf Torpedo hit point error Firing a Mk48 torpedo from SSN Hartford against an Akula.doc Torpedo hit point error Firing a Mk48 torpedo from SSN Hartford against an Oscar II.doc torpedo1.zip
  10. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000073 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2014.009 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.010 Terminal engagement sometimes does not occurPosted by CV32 on 23 May 2014 - 01:36 PM May be related to the current work in missile guidance, or at least that would be my uneducated guess. Behaviour is as follows: Active RH missile (whether AAM, ASM or SSM) appears to reach its intended target and then disappear. As if the terminal engagement did not happen. The behaviour appears to be inconsistent. Savegame is from HDS1 scenario 3.0 - Circle the Wagons Check the Harpoon SSM engagement in the North Sea. Issue-073-Terminal-engagement-sometimes-does-not-occur.pdf termARH.zip
  11. 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
  12. 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 Scenario Editor. Issue-114-Error-renaming-and-reading-bases-in-2015.07.pdf LCSFORTWORTH52015.zip
  13. 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
  14. 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 this time it will be one setting per scenario. Ideal might be a per-group setting as well as per-group type but that is not the intent of this feature request. Issue-056-SE-Add-toggle-AI-force-group-path-following.pdf
  15. 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
×
×
  • Create New...