IssueMigrator1

Issue Information Issue ID #000052 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2009.094 Fixed in Closing to next AAM rangePosted by Grumble on 21 September 2013 - 01:29 PM Closing to next AAM range would be a wonderful feature, (See how happy I was when I stumbled into it: Tony's revamped Game Engine #25) turns out it's in the GE, but it does not work consistently, could say as illusive as Bigfoot. (But I've seen it I swear! ) It happened just after I saved the attached file: I press [F1] Attack for DRA Target list pops up with TRA preselected and a soon as I accept TRA pressing OK, before or simultaneously to the Weapon Selection popup opening (turns out TRA is within Sparrow range despite it being displayed outside of the range ring, so I get the popup) the message "Closing to next AAM range" is displayed in the log window and a course is plotted for DRA for a Python range intercept the Weapon selection popup is still open at this time So it happened two times for me in quick succession but now I can't reproduce even with this lucky 1 second save file. Pretty please, make this work! Issue-52-Closing-to-next-AAM-range.pdf nextaamrange.zip nextaamrange2.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000040 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2009.086 Fixed in 2009.090 Tame AIPosted by Grumble on 13 August 2013 - 02:12 AM Tony, I know it is a known issue that the AI becomes less aggressive or less agile towards the end of scenarios, i.e. as time passes by. I think it was Brad confirming it to someone in a post. Is this bug a lost cause? Like it has been IDed but would require complete redesign of the AI to correct it? Please let me know if I'm wasting my time reporting on it! But I hope the fat lady has not sung yet, here are a few observations from my latest run in with the tame AI. This is HDS5 5.0 The Anglo-European War, so a comparatively small scenario. AI is red, playing EU/French side. BTW. it is French CV CDG vs. 2 x UK Invincible At the beginning the AI is alright. It has attacked and sunk several of my ships with standoff weapons, both with ASMs from Rafales and Exocets from Super Etandards. Little later an example for when AI is loosing planes to the RTB mission too easy. The AI would be more potent if it could reassign the RTB planes, ordnance and fuel allowing. (savegame 05.0012.hpa) AI has sent 2 x 2 Rafale, ZNA and ZMA to intercept Tornado F.3s ANA and AVA ZNA shoots down 1 x F.3 of ANA the other flees on full afterburner ZNA then turns home (must be because the Enemy is going too fast) Nastily (bad Grumble!) I turn ANA back and send it chasing ZNA again as it has fuel plenty. (This is when the savegame is from.) Eventually ANA shoots down 1 Rafale and the E-2C of CDG, while ZNA and ZMA are happily RTB with 90% of fuel and almost full load of AAMs. Pity. There are also 8 Standoff Rafale on CDG with 4 AAMs each, AI could scramble those too, though this would be really advanced thinking. Once the AI's AEW patrol has been shoot down it never sends up the other E-2C on board of the CDG. Around this time the AI is still ok, it even sends pair of the remaining air to air Rafales after my E-2C from Benbecula. (savegame 07.hpa) break off: But the Tornado F.3 CAP is able to sneak up on them from behind and splash them with Sidewinders. If the AI is ever going to be revamped, it must be taught the risks of sending solo flights into full enemy radar cover. A player has even described on the forums his 'tactics" of sending up an AEW bait plane and then the AI is sending all his fighters after the AEW one by one which are easy kill. Rather have the AI mission cost/benefit analysis consider radar coverage of the flight path. Decision = + value(target)*success_probabilty - value(self)*fail_probability - enemy_sensorcover(filghtpath) + friendly_sensorcover(flightpath) - enemy_AAthreat(flightpath) + fuelremaining ... After a day of game time though the AI is more of a pacifist. CDG meets with the Ark Royal, (savegame: 12.hpa) the AEW Sea King detects the French CV group, the AI probably only detects the AEW plane (it's a long range patrol, not formation and the Ark Royal group is otherwise passive.) but the AI does not even attempt to intercept the Sea King. Surprisingly, there is now a pair of LR Air to Air Super Etendard (mistyped as Etentard in HDS5) on CDG, so there are actually planes available with air to air loadout. (!!) The AI does show some initiative, there is no AtA Super Etendard scripted in the mission! Still no intercept mission was started. The AI passively suffers my hoarding missiles on it and when Georges Leyuges is sunk the AI group completely stops. I checked it's airwing with Show-All, there are still 9 Rafales there with Standoff loadout and Super Etendards, two of which is LR AtA. To rekindle life into the AI I manually ready 5 Rafales to AtA loadout. (savegame 12.0046.hpa) Nothing. No AI intercept mission against my a/c-s. Then I manually launch two Rafales to attack my Sea Harrier CAP then switch off Show All to see how would it look like. This way I actually manage to coerce the AI to shoot down one of my Harriers. (savegame 12.0054) Surprising development, the Rafales I cheat-launched has the multimode RDX radar (SS too) and they detect my ships while chasing the Harrires (SA prompted me to turn radars on as planes might detect us.) This seems to kick the AI in gear CDG's group starts to move again and the AI readies all it's available helos (Lynxes and Alouettes for Guided loadout and sends them to attack the Ark Royal! (savegame 12.0056) It ignores the remaining 4 x Standoff Rafales on board, ready 5 and the Standoff Etendards, on board, ready 5 and the 3 x Standoff Etendards already loitering above CDG as ASuW formation patrol Looks like that these planes are somehow lost for the AI, perhaps they are not joined properly back to the "available" a/c list of the AI after previous missions? Also, it is interesting that the AI readied an Etendard for AtA instead of the Rafales. Perhaps the Rafales were "lost" from the free list earlier than the Etendards? Let me know if any other other savegame from this scenario or other inestigation of specific situation can help to solve this bug! Issue-40-Tame-AI-Page1.pdf Issue-40-Tame-AI-Page2.pdf 12.0048-airafwork.zip bda.zip re05.zip TameAI.zip TameAI2.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000053 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 0000.000 Fixed in Maximum missile range in plattform editor=6553 nmPosted by broncepulido on 25 September 2013 - 06:32 AM I know the situation is clear, but perousing the new big Soviet ICBMs added by Brad in the last Cold War Database iteration, I see the platform editor (and perhaps also the Game Engine) limits a missile range to 6553 nautical miles. I see it as a very minor issue, but perhaps it's of easy solving. Issue-53-Maximum-missile-range-in-plattform-editor=6553-nm.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000054 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 0000.000 Fixed in Assertion Failed message errorPosted by broncepulido on 28 September 2013 - 11:12 PM Playing "The Last Convoy" scenario with the WWII DB to verify the game speed I get the adjunt error message many times, I think related with some animation, probably torpedo hitting subs. Pressing the virtual button "omitir" the game keeps running fine, but only the first ten times or so, after the game crashes. Some idea about it? Issue-54-Assertion-Failed-message-error.pdf Assertion Failed.doc

Issue Information Issue ID #000060 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2009.097 Fixed in Turf monster eating AI planesPosted by Grumble on 18 October 2013 - 11:16 PM Occasionally there are unsolicited slander messages reporting that an "enemy a/c group have been shot down" when I'm completely innocent. HDS8 9.0 Demise of the 7th fleet seems to be rich in this, To Go 2:21:38:14 4 enemy MiG-29 Fulcrum of group (ZUb), have been shot down. To Go 2:21:08:39 4 enemy Jaguar Intl of group (ZZa), have been shot down. To Go 2:20:26:55 6 enemy Super Etentard of group (ZSR), have been shot down. To Go 2:20:19:02 4 enemy Jaguar Intl of group (ZWb), have been shot down. These are most likely AI planes running out of fuel, usually on formation patrol, ZSR is miffing a bit. Tony, is this a known issue or merits a closer look? Issue-60-Turf-monster-eating-AI-planes.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000062 Issue Type Issue Severity 1 - Low Status UNFILED Version 2009.102 Fixed in HDS8 Active Sparrow 7MPosted by Grumble on 26 October 2013 - 09:52 AM AIM-7M Sparrow missiles in HDS8 do not self destruct loosing illumination. The AA-9 Amos destructs as expected. asparrow.save: F-18C fired Sparrows on the Raptor but the AMRAAMs will get the Hornets first, Sparrows fly on. asparrowa.save: example Issue-62-HDS8-Active-Sparrow-7M.pdf asparrow.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000061 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2009.102 Fixed in Click to refresh screenPosted by Grumble on 26 October 2013 - 08:59 AM A strange one, playing HDS8 9.0, Demise of the 7th fleet, about 12 hours into the scenario the Group window is only being refreshed (redrawn) once a minute (~) real time, Unit window is refreshed normally. I can force Group refresh if I click in the Group window. The issue is consistent, persists through save/reload, both with 2009.097 and 2009.102 and tested on two machines. Other scenarios, but even saves of HDS8 9.0 from few hours earlier are OK. Corrupt save file?? Low prio, posted for the record. Issue-61-Click-to-refresh-screen.pdf clicktorefresh.zip hds904manyunits.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000098 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2014.020 Fixed in Unit Window zooming errorPosted by Gopher on 08 November 2014 - 03:55 PM Just discoverd a reproducable minor pitty issue on 2014.020GE 1. Press CTRL-N for a new scenario 2. Select EC 2003 Battle for the Mediterranean 3. Select scenario 9.0 Aces and Eight's 4. Select red side 5. Select any red group with the right mouse to center the group window except ZXa! 6. Click with the left mouse buttom in the unit window zoom area like 8x. Result: The unit window jumpe back to ZXa. Ok, I had the tool-box 1.2.5 in the background. Tony, from my point of view is there more interesting stuff to do than to solve this issue. Issue-98-Unit-Window-zooming-error.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000099 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 0000.000 Fixed in Firing arc not implemented on Submarine torpedo tubesPosted by broncepulido on 21 November 2014 - 07:56 AM If you play the attached test scenario (HCDB standard 1980-2015, EC 2003 Battleset GIUK Gap), sailing with the Type 205 U-1 SS on the marked course, detecting the cargo ship, pointing with the stern to the cargo ship (U-1 has only frontal arc firing torpedo tubes), firing torpoedoes at target and verifying as torpedoes are fired in direction to target, from the U-1 stern, when U-1 has not stern fire cabables torpedo tubes. Issue-99-Firing-arc-not-implemented-on-Submarine-torpedo-tubes.pdf SUBFIREARCTEST.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000100 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 0000.000 Fixed in Firing Arc not implement on surface ships torpedo tubesPosted by broncepulido on 21 November 2014 - 08:14 AM If you play the attached test scenario (HCDB standard 1980-2015, EC 2003 Battleset GIUK Gap, Blue Side), sailing with the Halland DD on the marked course, detecting the cargo ship, pointing she with the bow to the cargo ship (Halland has only both lateral arcs firing torpedo tubes), firing torpoedoes at target and verifying as torpedoes are fired in direction to target, from the Halland bow, when Halland has not bow arc fire capable torpedo tubes. Issue-100-Firing-Arc-not-implement-on-surface-ships-torpedo-tubes.pdf SHIPSURFACEFIRINGARCTEST.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000102 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 0000.000 Fixed in Another time gun ammo amount errorPosted by broncepulido on 23 November 2014 - 12:46 PM I think we get a similar error a pair of years ago. In this example, playing the G-20 Brisbame Summit 2014 scenario, I found Russian AO Boris Chilikin-class, after firing guns for a while, has 65241 gun ammo in one of her mounts!!! (Attached files are saved game and screen capture).

Issue Information Issue ID #000135 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 0000.000 Fixed in Scenario EditorPosted by gkm on 11 December 2015 - 08:39 PM I just downloaded the latest greatest GE SE PE. GE and PE are working, SE dll will not launch. Is the latest SE supposed to be ready for a 64 bit environment? Issue-135-Scenario-Editor.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000140 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2015.028 Fixed in Scenario crashing because "phantom" submarine groupPosted by broncepulido on 20 December 2015 - 12:51 PM Just when I was finishing the Black Sea scenario, and in the first attempt to run the scenario, the GE crashes (but be calm, I almost resolve it). When loading the scenario in the GE, it don't l oad, and the GE crashes. Opening the scenario with the SE, and don't remembering none bad "movement", I activate the "Analyze scenario" routine, ask by "Completness" (in the first essay I click also later in "complete analysis", and the SE crashed) and find, almost by hazard: - "Submarine Group ZWU: NO VARIABLE STARTING POINTS ENTERED. NO PATH ENTERED." - As in this concrete scenario I remember very well to have checked all the submarine groups alternate starting points and paths and speeds, I suspect a lot about it. - I did search the Submarine Group ZWU with the space bar, as I'm almost sure is a "phantom" group (perhaps one of my errours creating a "vide" group, but I don't remember to did it in this scenario building). - And bingo, selecting the Submarine Group ZWU with the space bar is a phantom group (the map reconduces it to UK zone). - I simply delete it and the scenarios runs ok, but what moments of terror! I post it if is of interest for debugging and so. Issue-140-Scenario-crashing-because_phantom_submarine-group.pdf BLACK SEA 2015-2.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000139 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2015.028 Fixed in Not Enough FuelPosted by eeustice on 20 December 2015 - 08:57 AM Went to launch AC attack on base AAa, Andersen Air Force base on Guam. Selected 100 Su-30MK2F with a range of 2100 miles With a GP load out with KH-102A missiles with a range of 1511.0 miles Range to target is 1704 miles. Got msg that says Not Enough Fuel to Attack Target. Added Tankers and still received the same msg. I get the same message in the SE and GE The attached file includes latest db, Scenario file and a Word doc with screen shots. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks, Eric Issue-139-Not-Enough-Fuel.pdf Not enough fuel.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000150 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.003 Fixed in Errour operating DataBasePosted by broncepulido on 29 March 2016 - 12:56 PM Probably my fault, but the DB edition is not operative, and I get the errour reflected in the attached file. Issue-150-Errour-operating-DataBase.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000151 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.002 Fixed in SE Sonar RangesPosted by eeustice on 13 April 2016 - 06:51 PM In SE when looking at sonar ranges in the Groups drop down, Platform Display window all sonar ranges are incorrectly displayed. The GE sonar ranges are fine in the Platform display window. Attached is a screen shot of what the SE Sonar ranges look like. Radar ranges look good If you have any questions please let me know. No impact on game play. I just stumbled onto it. Thanks, Eric Issue-151-SE-Sonar-Ranges.pdf Active Sonar Ranges.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000155 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.006 Fixed in Sub Missile LaunchPosted by eeustice on 19 July 2016 - 03:17 PM Subs launch missiles before ascending to proper depth. In 1st pic in Word doc the sub is at deep depth. Missiles are launched while Sub is at Deep depth while ascending to Shallow depth. Missiles should wait to launch until sub is at Shallow depth. You can see on the log on screen that sub is ascending to a shallower depth but missiles have already launched. Attached is a copy of my screen shots before and after TASM missile launch Sub-rock does the same thing. A small test scenario and a saved game. I had to include my db due to the weapons on the sub. Please let me know if you need any additional info. Thanks, Eric Issue-155-Sub-Missile-Launch.pdf Sub Missile Launch.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000157 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.006 Fixed in Incorrect Speed After LaunchPosted by eeustice on 25 July 2016 - 08:23 PM After launching a F-21C off of CV the F-21C obtained the default altitude but never increased the speed at the default altitude after launch of Med. The f-21 still stayed at the "Low" altitude of speed 700kts instead of assuming the Medium altitude speed of 800kts. It appears that after launch that the speed of AC is not changing automatically after launch when it gets to it's cruising altitude per the speed altitude table from the db. I have included the following: Small scenario Saved game from the scenario A screen shot of the F-21C flying at Medium altitude but at the Low Speed of 700kts instead of 800kts. A screen shot of the F-21C from my db Copy of the commondb.res GE Log If this doesn't make a lot of sense to you please let me know. I have also noticed under the several games I have played since the Speed/Altitude changes that I seem to no longer be attacked. I am not sure if the 2 are related. I am going to try and see tomorrow night with 2016.003 and see if the AI will attack my TG's playing the same scenario. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Eric Issue-157-Incorrect-Speed-After-Launch.pdf Altitude Speed Test.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000161 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2009.008 Fixed in GE Formation EditorPosted by eeustice on 28 August 2016 - 11:23 AM Location of units in GE Formation out to lunch. DDG 140 in Formation window appears at the top of the Group window. Went to launch Helo from DDG 140. Helo appears to be launched from CG 81. Launched Helo from HC Version 2016.003 with same results. The 2 issues in some way must be related. It appears in 2016.008 the Message Log is logging the Aircraft Patrolling (changing course). I don't know if this was intended. Included are a copy of Scenario Before and after Helo Launch, copy of db, copy of the Message Log, and various screen shots showing the described issues. If you have any questions please let me know. Issue-161-GE-Formation-Editor.pdf Formation Editor Location.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000162 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.003 Fixed in Negative Altitude in ActUnitReport Export DLLPosted by eeustice on 08 September 2016 - 04:32 PM Negative altitudes appear in the ActUnitReport Export DLL. When using 2016.008 it appears in the Message Box. Altitude Logging is not active in the version I was testing my scenario with due to the issues I experienced in my last Issue report. This scenario was tested with 2016.003. The arrows on the screen shot show where the air group is located in the Group and Unit windows. There is a screen shot of the ActUnitReport Export DLL that displays the negative altitude. I have included the saved game and a copy of my current database. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Eric Issue-162-Negative-Altitude-in-ActUnitReport-Export DLL.pdf Negative Altitude.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000163 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.010 Fixed in Orders of intercetion crashes planes at Very LowPosted by broncepulido on 17 October 2016 - 12:59 PM I saw some strange things playing the F-35A introductory scenario (my "personal" Portuguese F-16 are not NOE flight capables, and when the GE ask me "do you want go to 791 knots with the F-16 to intercept", they crashed against ground. Only after played the scenario many times I was suspecting something, but no clear yet). Yesterday playing the Occupy Norway 2016 scenario I saw more clearly the same case (longer interception ranges, more easy to see the phenomenon). At last I discovered how to reproduce the effect in the attached scenario. In the scenario F-35A and Portuguese F-16A MLU are replaced with poor USAF F-16A Blk 10 without NOE capability. Persevering in interceptions sometimes the GE will ask you "do yo want to go to 791 knots with the F-16", click on the "yes" button, and you will see the F-16 afterburning NOE, and crashing against the ground, as per the usual rules (aircraft, speed greater than 150 knots, and not NOE capable). If not reproduced the attached saved scenario shows the phenomenon in the F-16A group AGa. Thanks. Issue-163-Orders-of-intercetion-crashes-planes-at-Very-Low.pdf ERROUR VERY LOW.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000169 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.003 Fixed in Incorrect Scenario Analysis DataPosted by eeustice on 04 December 2016 - 10:34 AM In the Misc dropdown menu in the SE the Scenario Analysis screen shows incorrect data for both Red and Blue bases when you select Evaluate Forces. When ASW AC are on a base or ship the count shows up as a Combat aircraft instead of an ASW Aircraft on both Red and Blue sides. Attached is a screen shot of the Evaluation Forces for a small scenario . A small Scenario with Red and Blue Bases and TG's. Copy of my 161008 Fictional Database. If you have any questions please let me know. Issue-169-Incorrect-Scenario-Analysis-Data.pdf Scenario Analysis.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000170 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.003 Fixed in No ASM's in Port and Airfield Window in GEPosted by eeustice on 04 December 2016 - 11:25 AM In the Port and Airfields window of the GE there are 0 ASM's. Not exactly sure what they ar. There SSM's, LAM's and SAM's. I know what they are but what are ASM's. Is this something leftover from something in the past. Attached is a copy of a small scenario, copy of my Fictional db 161008, screen shot with arrow showing the location of the 0 ASM's. If you have any questions please let me know Issue-170-No-ASM's-in-Port-and-Airfield-Window-in-GE.pdf No ASM's Missiles.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000171 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2016.003 Fixed in No Aircraft added to air base fro Air Defense units in SEPosted by eeustice on 04 December 2016 - 12:33 PM In the SE no aircraft are added to the air base total from air defense units or barges. GE is OK. Attached is a small scenario, screen shot of airbase with only 1 plane on it. There are 10 planes each on the Air Defense Unit and Barge attached to base. Please let me know if you have any questions Issue-171-No-Aircraft-added-to-air-base-fro-Air-Defense-units-in-SE.pdf SE No AC.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000177 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status UNFILED Version 2015.027 Fixed in Order of Battle build 2015.027Posted by rainman on 27 January 2017 - 01:14 PM I am having a consistent problem- Using 2015.027 with HCDB2-170122, when you click on one of your airbases with aircraft present in the OOB display it crashes the game. Game appears normal otherwise. Only the land bases, never the surface/sub groups. Using Win XP in Virtual PC. Problem first appeared with installation of HCDB2-161204. scenario is Broncepulido's newest. Issue-177-Order-of-Battle-build-2015.027.pdf Bug 1-27-17.zip