TonyE

These two still need verification. Note the second has a related issue report that will need updating. Thank you

Bump, we still need verification that the updated scenarios and orders made it into EC2003. See the related issue reports for the changes that will tip you off to the correct ones being in the 2009.042+ battlesets.

HC will definitely run faster on the Core 2 Duo. The Atom and Core 2 series cannot be compared GigaHertz to GigaHerts, the Core 2 just plain does a whole lot more per clock cycle than the Atom. Plus as Don hints, the second core will let Windows do a lot of its being on that second core while HC is sucking down processing power.

Nobody has marked Active sonar as verified fixed in the Issue Tracker, if it is fixed, please update the issue. Thank you http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=176

HCE - 2010.015 - 2010/12/05 =========================== + Chg:0000 GE ESM works again (thanks Don Thomas) as do the other detection types. + Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should show the correct size now. + Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should highlight the selected sectors again. (thanks Don Thomas) I've attached my scenarios that I used to test the Sensor types. Play all as Blue, targets to the East. HCDB-101022 was used. VISUAL.SCM Visual - Fly A-4 straight East, expect visual detect at 2nm from Red cargo ship IR - Fly F-35 straight East, expect IR detect > 2nm from Red cargo ship Radar - Turn on F-35 Radar and fly East, detect... ESM - Since this build is broken you can turn the Red sensors on by toggling on Show-All, turn on sensor, toggle off Show-All then launch F-35, insta-ESM detect. SONAR.SCM CZ - Convergence Zone detect - Run Seawolf towards LNG carrier, I ran at 5kts Intermed or Deep and got a 3rd CZ detect one time out of three tries, that's 97-107nm from the Seawolf. Oh, I used the trick to control Red and set it to Flank speed. Passive - Set depth to Shallow and intercept the ship at Creep (19kts in Seawolf's case). You should get a Passive detect plenty far out. Active - I couldn't get an Active detect before Passive by using Seawolf, you'd have to turn on sonar logging. One can always go back to Rene's test scen in the original issue report. SONBUOY.SCM Use SBs to detect the Red Noisemaker. It is loud so you shouldn't have too much trouble. The one detection type I didn't test was MAD; the code looks consistent like it will work but I didn't follow-thru with a test. SensorTests.zip

HCE - 2010.015 - 2010/12/05 =========================== - Chg:0000 GE ESM works again (thanks Don Thomas) as do the other detection types. - Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should show the correct size now. - Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should highlight the selected sectors again. (thanks Don Thomas)

I got a good chuckle from your test scen when I noticed that SAM unit doesn't have the ESM flag, HQ-61A Bty There was still a problem but I think I'll swap out that SAM for one with ESM.

hehe, I've started the process but definitely won't finish tonight, must sleep.

Let me look tonight but I think I can pretty easily make a special version of the BS Builder that will pause between cutting the small map image from the large image and crunching it into the battleset file. I don't know if you'll be able to get the results you want but at least you'll be able to try.

Can you provide more information on what you intend? The BS Builder can't use a textured map graphic any larger than what it already has so I expect you cannot get the detail you desire within the current structure. I'm just wondering if you are barking up a tree that has no fruit.

Definitely something to add to your wishlist. Repairs are all hard-coded in the game and fall to pretty random chance.

I enjoyed the read but saw a lot of fear mongering and worst-case assumptions in there. When done it was actually the first time I felt good about the JSF for the USA. F-22 ~ F-15, F-35 ~ F16. The F-16 only had maneuverability when it came out and only carried Sidewinder for AAM. It was massively outclassed in weapons range by many of the supposed opponents. Well, that's where the F-35 is and maybe that's not a bad thing for the US (the cost is an ugly burden though). It probably is bad for other countries who are buying JSF and don't have F-22 and yes, I do wish we'd keep the F-22 line warm and the engineers on the task of constantly updating the electronics and software.

Thank you for typing this up, I thought I might have to beat it out of you! 1. UncleHarpoon wants this too... 8. I played with this for about 6 months back about 5 years and had disastrous results (a player driving an F-14 could intimidate all of the opponents away and while that was fun and somewhat realistic , it demonstrated that this is a difficult request to implement well). Still I happen to agree that automatic evasion should happen. 13. Can you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean. 14. This exists in the code too but is turned off. The planes when threatened would drop their bombs and benefit from the increased maneuverability (the loadout DATA vs the plane's DATA) so I imagine it could make a return at some point. Similar difficulties to #8, surmountable, just not as easy at it seems.

Will be writing some code and using your test saves and scens here tonight.

hmm how about some kind of shout box? Sorry I missed this before. I did try a shoutbox once and we had a PHP-based chat mechanism for a while. The PHP chat was decent for H3 multiplayer matchups and I even made a working little system tray application that alerted me to new messages. Ease of use for me is important. IRC is very easy for me (and apparently difficult for others) and my chat client does what I need (mainly in notification capabilities, the thing does text to speech on the chat). That isn't present in a shoutbox that is easily integrated. I do think a widget of sorts that puts some IRC info up (# people in channel, last message timestamp) should be doable.

HC doesn't explicitly use multiple cores at this juncture but it will eventually and most probably within the lifetime of your netbook.

Thanks Don! As for earlier question, I don't expect to back-port the sonar fix to the non-sides version. My current thinking is to push ahead with sides and not look back. We'll see if that lasts

Well isn't that just cute. I guess we'd better pack extra spares before leaving port or hire a Chinese merchant ship to tail the CSG wiht spares.

I took it for a spin, explosions seem to be in their proper spots. A problem is that the neutral side that hasn't detected any units in the engagement will still see the explosion. Fun but probably not the best thing.

Oh, and this build might fix the location and appearance of the little explosion graphic on the group windows. Please post your findings. I got caught up on the active sonar before double-checking the explosions.

Thanks JMS, I stripped it down further and posted that version to the Issue Report. With so many ships and subs there is too much to follow in the debugger, one ship and one sub was the sweet spot for this issue. But your scenario was an easy jumping-off point for me so thanks again!

HCE - 2010.014 - 2010/11/30 =========================== + Chg:0000 GE Player can now click groups on the map to select a target. This was broken with the new group windows. So when you intend to launch TLAM and you click "Attack", in the recent builds you had to select the target group in the list of groups rather than clicking the target group on the map. Now you can click on the map again. + Chg:0000 GE Version/Build added to header line of ge.log and MessageLog.txt + Chg:0000 GE Launch animations should only show for detected and own units. This was broken with the new group windows where you would see launch animations for ships not detected by the active group window's side. + 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. (thanks Rene, JMS) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=176 That last one is a biggie. A wonder the game worked right at all! Would be good to make sure passive sonar, radar, ESM, visual detections still work.

HCE - 2010.014 - 2010/11/30 =========================== - Chg:0000 GE Player can now click groups on the map to select a target. This was broken with the new group windows. So when you intend to launch TLAM and you click "Attack", in the recent builds you had to select the target group in the list of groups rather than clicking the target group on the map. Now you can click on the map again. - Chg:0000 GE Version/Build added to header line of ge.log and MessageLog.txt - Chg:0000 GE Launch animations should only show for detected and own units. This was broken with the new group windows where you would see launch animations for ships not detected by the active group window's side. - 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. (thanks Rene, JMS) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=176

I would greatly appreciate if someone can follow-up on http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=176 Specifically get the ship with active sonar only a longer ranged sonar and much closer to the object to detect (preferably one that doesn't sink the ship with the sonar). Thank you!

Way to go Ralf!