TonyE

Just a reminder that if you come to chat on IRC (please do), make sure you say something. Someone with the nickname Wolff just came through and didn't say anything and wasn't noticed a result. Plus it is isn't the best chat etiquette to come and be silent so speak up. Java Chat http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?automodule=javairc Simple Windows chat client http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=281 Info for your own IRC client server: irc.stratsims.com channel: #harpgamer

March 6th update: 18 errors, 299 warnings

Early returns say these are good scenarios and given that the battlesets are as good as empty; yes, I imagine they'll end up in the game. It may not be the next patch though, could be second one down the line, we'll see.

Yes, the maximum size is the resolution of the underlying map graphic file. That maxes out at 1024 pixels across at present. So not a OS limitation, just game design limitation.

Thanks for sharing Brad!

Watched but not nearly as much as usual. Bad luck of the draw as well since most of what I saw was cross country skiing during the daytime broadcast. Managed to catch the last 2+ periods of USA vs Canada gold medal hockey game though, good stuff.

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.

I think you will see the capability in ANW before you see it in HC (though you can play some 95% of the world in one map in HC by using the BattleSet Builder). See screenshot of one I made (I wanted to do B-2 strikes from Whiteman to Baghdad http://www.tgp.net/test/HCWorldMap1.jpg . If you play with the BS Builder, check out a 'prettier' base map from http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=268 Just to make you wish for movement take a look at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3187 which is a whole-world-spherical globe-based map development. Google Earth viewer too, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=323

You probably know my opinions already but since you asked... My opinion is that the existing codebase is poorly suited to anything but bug fixing and very limited improvements. Making large changes to the existing codebase (especially the user interface) is very inefficient. I would rather use time equivalent to that inefficiency to use what we know and have to start over (yes, borring wholesale where possible to save effort). With a reworked base game I think both divisions can be accomodated. Which all goes back to http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showforum=49 . That forum demonstrates the lack of participation. With one single team nothing is happening there (I'm happy to take part, design, program,..., but as I've stated there, I don't want to drive it or be the only participant, someone(s) need to step up and make it happen). That's my opinion, use our single team to create a 'new/used' base game then as many teams can form as there are different specialties to attack.

Squeaky wheel and all that too. Priority #1 at the moment is preventing the kamikaze planes reintroduced by the improved air guns which leads to linked Priority #2 to send the game for release to AGSI. After that we'll see, arcs are seemingly an easy thing to test and debug so they could just accidentally slip into my efforts. I've avoided them also in the grander gunnery scheme since it bothers me not having more user interface for guns (like a "hey buddy, stop shooting at that target" button). Arcs just complicate the decision of the game to keep shooting or not. Anyway, I think in a long roundabout way that answers each query

This is a true and important part. At some number of SAMs the game considers the SSMs well enough covered and no more SAMs will fire for the next while. It is a big reason you'll see the LR SAM shooters go wild and then nothing from the shorter-ranged. Note I'm not trying to defend it (somewhere buried deep in HG forums is my explanation of my approach to improving the situation).

I'm doing some cleaning and space consolidation and have some Harpoon items that are on their way out. All items are computer harpoon from the 'classic' series. All are PC compatible. Harpoon Designer's series 3.5" disks and box (no idea if disks are good) Harpoon Designer's series II disks, box, and printed manual (no idea if disks are good) Harpoon Scenario Editor disks, box (no idea if disks are good, no printed manual) Harpoon GE on 3.5" disks and IOPG battleset on 5.25" disks, box, and some inserts (no idea if disks are good, no printed manual) If you hadn't guessed, I acquired these to have the boxes. Holler if you'd like some or all of them. Payment is optional in the form of Paypal donation to Stratsims at http://www.stratsims.com/CIC.asp

I would not consider making existing depths shallower for fear of breaking existing scenarios. Bret McKee, one of the genius HC2002/HC Gold/HC WestPac programmers, wrote a goodly amount of elevation code that we'll have to try some day. I expect that day is far off. As for Brad's suggestion of making existing depths deeper; that could be done without breaking scenarios but I still consider it unlikely to happen anytime soon.

#4 & #5 for me unfortunately; not to mention I've been lucky enough to be privvy to the development of the MBX so it wouldn't be too fair to play.

#2 I don't know what to think of you anymore Pete, unbelievable (j/k)

Way to go! Point defense does still use some arc limitations. 'Regular' guns do not adhere to arcs anymore because I got lazy, not for any deeper technical reason. Looking forward to seeing more findings here from others .

You might be able to cobble together enough files from: http://www.harpoonpages.com/ftp/harpoon1/nacv.zip and more generally http://www.harpoonpages.com/harpoon1.htm I also have to agree with Mack that HCE is probably worth your while! At least check out the demo via http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3446

Listing of extensions at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2380

Should work fine with Access 2007 (does for me anyway). http://wiki.computerharpoon.com/index.php/...ide#Access_2007 might help.

Hehe, it is very alive in this thread!

Tell me why should the player not have the option to micro manage the air defenses?? I think that the option is more realistic and will have more game value.. This time there is no code reason... It is my feeling that the player can already 'game' the system too much. Allowing the player to manually allocate SAMs and AAA would imho take that ability much farther and harm the playability and realism of the game. In the event we add multiplayer and/or a more intelligent AI I'll be much more easily convinced to allow micro-management of SAMs. You might say for me it is a matter of play balance and allowing manual allocation would tip the balance even farther in the direction of the player.

That is the problem okey,why is this implemented?? any chance someone will fix this anytime soon in a update? My opinion is that the AI needs to be smarter before the player is given micro-management of SAMs capabilities. Of course I question whether the player should ever have the capability to micro-manage air defenses. There is no chance surface to air engagements will be made manual in the next 3 months (and unlikely in the foreseeable future).

Hint, check out the Issue tracker for the revised scens, and release notes threads here to verify that the ones that should be in there already are in there. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...p;showproject=6

I'd suggest you give Herman a shout, hermanhum@hotmail.com

1. Not currently with H3dsdedit 2. Not easily but you could keep text files of the battleset description and paste them into H3dsdedit Do you expect to be making new battleset files often that would maybe merit me looking at the editing capability?