TonyE

Okay, got a new one I'm hoping you guys can test for stability. It is a precursor to hopefully replacing the Unit window. The file is attached, unzip to your ExportDLLs folder. When you run the game this DLL will throw up a window with a button to show you information about the units visible in the Unit window (at present it only has information for exactly localized units). It also makes a text file in your HC directory called "hcunitwin.txt". Yes, I do know it is annoying that it stays on top of the other windows... Anyway, I'm looking for feedback on whether it crashes your game or causes any other big hardships. It will slow your game down somewhat. The log files aren't too huge so I don't think they'll run you out of space or anything. Must be used with GE 2008.053 (or newer?).

HCE - 2008.053 ============== - Chg:0000 GE In weapon type to fire selection screen for sub launched weapons don't allow selection of torpedoes unless the submarine has torps. (thanks Rene) - Chg:0000 GE Fixed a memory leak that meant the Staff Assistant image used new memory each time it was displayed and then didn't free the old memory. Leak was introduced in 2008.027.

HCE - 2008.053 ============== - Chg:0000 GE In weapon type to fire selection screen for sub launched weapons don't allow selection of torpedoes unless the submarine has torps. (thanks Rene) - Chg:0000 GE Fixed a memory leak that meant the Staff Assistant image used new memory each time it was displayed and then didn't free the old memory. Leak was introduced in 2008.027. This is an interesting build. It is the first one you are seeing that was made with Visual Studio 2008 which may mean strange and unexpected errors. Hopefully not though, it has been working well for a day or so around here.

Maybe I'll be less sick again by the time you retire from the service and have HC ready for some righteous coding assistance . Must admit I'm a bit jealous, the US military didn't want me for health reasons, I'm glad you have a second chance at it.

Each works independently in its own arc. Multiple CIWS firing at the same target would probably hose up the system as each firing mount tracks the outgoing bullets and uses the old feedback loop to adjust the fire towards the incoming threat. I wonder if two firing at the same target would try to shoot each other

The former is fixed in 2008.053 (unreleased as yet) The latter seems to be fixed in 2008.052 (please test)

HCE - 2008.052 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Submarines weren't able to fire torps if they didn't have guns since 2008.050 came out. Fixed that (thanks Brad) - Chg:0000 GE Removed a situation where telling a submarine to fire guns would result in weapons allocations including torpedoes. (thanks Rene)

HCE - 2008.052 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Submarines weren't able to fire torps if they didn't have guns since 2008.050 came out. Fixed that (thanks Brad) - Chg:0000 GE Removed a situation where telling a submarine to fire guns would result in weapons allocations including torpedoes. (thanks Rene) See 2008.050 Release notes for test files for the second item.

HCE - 2008.051 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Fixed crash where a non-air unit was getting checked for dogfight gun ammo. (thanks Brad)

HCE - 2008.051 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Fixed crash where a non-air unit was getting checked for dogfight gun ammo. (thanks Brad) Brad verified that this works.

Many Many thoughts yes but I won't bore you with them all. My take on the paper is that it seems well put together and the evidence backs up the statements made by the author. Unlike most nuclear weapons articles it didn't get sidetracked by the massive effects of even one well placed 100s of kT warhead. There may well not have been a window of vulnerability but some of the reactions to the perceived window may have done their part in hastening the end of the Cold War. We all know nukes are expensive to create and maintain and a fictional vulnerability forced the West into upgrades and new weapons systems that kept the cycle moving in the USSR to continue developing more quantity, better accuracy, longer ranged, more costly systems to add to the existing (costly to maintain) mix. So the 'fictional' window in part led to very real expenditures that further pressed the USSR into the financial corner that helped bring it down. Back to the idea of even a single warhead causing massive disruption is another opinion of mine that it doesn't matter if there was a vulnerability or not, even a few hits in the right spots (let alone the still expected hundreds of hits in populated areas) would certainly have taken the USA off the almanac of world affairs (think two ICBMs worth of warheads, a single warhead taking out 10% or more of the refining capacity of the US, a few more to bring the power grid to its knees, maybe knock out a couple of ports and you've more than crippled the US economy for decades. Could the same be done to the USSR, likely yes as it was already fairly close to the breaking point and upsetting the economy in any amount whatsoever (take out Moscow and all the central planning along with it and the USSR probably dissolves as a military and world power force). I've read fairly well justified books that explain how a single warhead in refinery country South USA could really do a number. I think any idea of a vulernability given the large number of warheads at each side's disposal, even after a sneak counter-force attack, in human and economic terms would be just plain nuts. There would still be enough force to ruin the other guy's infrastructure for decades. That doesn't mean the psychological and political idea of a vulnerability isn't important (cue Dr. Strangelove), far from it. Our favorite war room movie makes fun of the all too true and important application of so much irrational concern to the idea of 14,000 warheads being way too few if the other guy has 16,000.

Thanks for keeping us grounded Pete

Okay guys, the real question was at what number of units on the test setup with all units visible at once does the manuevering of the map become unpalatable to you? My threshold is about 2,000 units on this notebook.

Suggested test setup: Max Lat: 10 Max Lon: 10 Then click DrawUnits Zoom out so you see all of the units. Is panning the display responsive enough for you (we're looking for the point you can't stand the lag)? If it is bearable, increase Max Units, click DrawUnits and evaluate again. Rinse and repeat and post back here. Both Brad and I are finding a hard limit of just under 2,500 units where the drawing functions give out and the program throws errors. I don't know how much effect the range numbers will have so any results you want to share are encouraged.

Please take the attached program for a spin. It is to gauge performance showing units on a new unit map view. Report back with your findings. A good measure may be how many units you can have in a 5 deg by 5 deg box and still have it be useable at low zoom levels. You can unzip the files pretty much anywhere, it need not be in your HCE directory. This is so far a totally independent test rig. All I'm looking for is your thoughts and feelings about the performance; no need to report quirks at this juncture. The z and x keys should zoom the map in and out if the map has the focus. GlobeTest_v1000.zip

Rene, any chance you can attach your test setup for posterity? Thanks Same for you Akula

Passed on by my dad's employer (well, before dad retired).

As the release notes say, sub vs. ship.

Nice Pete I think the focus for the next iteration is increasing the efficiency of the reactor and using the output to increase the MPG of the lawnmower (or whatever a push mower's fuel usage is called ). So lower voltage, scuff up the tubes to increase surface area, spice up the water with a catalyst. Benchmark the improvement and then see about that lawnmower.

For labor day weekend the goal was to challenge the laws of physics and go from electricity + water -> combustibles -> surplus of mechanical energy + electricity. In other words, run an engine from water and end up with more electricity (via generator) than we put into the operation. Sadly we didn't accomplish that small feat but we did blow apart the choke mechanism on a 2-stroke engine when we fed in a bit too much of the combustibles . This project was undertaken by my friend Mark and I after being sent very ambiguous documents and 'plans' by friend Amy. The physics laws challenging idea is that if you apply a certain frequency signal into water, electrolysis will happen much more efficiently than with a brute force DC current. Since I was not able to get the electronics cooperating and making those nice certain frequencies on command (42.8kHz, and 600-610 Hz are bandied about a lot), we started with the brute force 12V DC approach. Photos: 1. Old fashioned gauges, current flow from battery and voltage. 2. The electrode setup, we used stainless steel pipes with about 0.5mm gap between them. We were supposed to do a 1mm gap but I wasn't thinking when selecting the tubes and was thinking radius instead of diameter. 3. Put the electrodes in the reaction chamber (aka 4" PVC pipe sealed up well). 4. Reaction chamber. The goal was 60psi of pressure. Ours was leaking like a sieve at 25psi. Where the wires came out ended up being the worst offender but the water feed pipe also presented problems. Oh, and the 4" end caps leaked eventually too, we didn't expect that. 5. The output (combustible gases tube from top of reaction chamber) goes to a bubbler. The gases bubble up through water in the hopes that if a flame comes down the tube from the engine only the bubbler will blow, not your reaction chamber. Luckily we didn't have a flame reach our bubbler. 6. Spark/flame arrestor. This should go as near the engine as possible and should stop any flame that comes back from the engine (or whatever you connect your combustible gases to). We used tightly packed fine steel wool and it worked. It is important to fill the voids in the connectors as well or the flame will have a nice chamber to get flaming in. I know it works as a result of lighting the output with a handheld propane torch. There was a nice POP and then I could see a flame burning at the end of the flame suppressor. 7. Eventually I got a PIC microcontroller making the requisite 42.8kHz signal so this is my output transistor. What I learned: a. It is tougher to make PVC hold decent pressure than I thought it would be. The last place I thought a bad seal would appear is at the end caps of the 4" pipe. b. The laws of physics (energy conservation) are just plain difficult to beat. c. It can be really fun trying to beat the laws of physics. d. Dissociated water is scary stuff and likes to blow up with great gusto! e. Spark arrestors are key even if they don't get called out much in plans. f. It may well be possible to use this mechanism to run an automobile on electricity for short periods without doing an electric conversion. That'd be really handy for me. g. The bubbles are neat. When comparing output of 12V DC vs a square wave I just set the electrodes in a small cooler and watched the bubbles rise. For the next attempt: 1. Variable frequency electronics. 2. Lower voltage, say 1.5V or variable voltage. 3. Better pressure containment. 4. A four stroke engine that actually has a fuel line (stupid lawn mowers with carb/tank integrated).

HCE - 2008.050 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Enabled subs to shoot guns at ships. Subs still cannot shoot guns at other subs. (thanks Rene)

HCE - 2008.050 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Enabled subs to shoot guns at ships. Subs still cannot shoot guns at other subs. (thanks Rene) I've attached my test rig in case anyone wants to use it to verify things are working. I have not tested to see if the AI will use guns against player ships and actually assume that it will not (verification would be good...). SSvsShipGuns.zip

HCE - 2008.049 ============== - Chg:B037 GE Show Aircraft nuke loadouts in platform display even if release hasn't been granted. Don't show nuke loadouts in Active Unit Display until nuke release is granted. As in previous builds, don't allow player to load a plane with nukes until nuclear release is granted. (thanks Rene)

HCE - 2008.049 ============== - Chg:B037 GE Show Aircraft nuke loadouts in platform display even if release hasn't been granted. Don't show nuke loadouts in Active Unit Display until nuke release is granted. As in previous builds, don't allow player to load a plane with nukes until nuclear release is granted. (thanks Rene) If it works for you Rene in a way you are satisfied with, please update the status in the bug tracker. Thanks!

None of the above rounded out their contributions so they are off the team until they show they really want to be here.