TonyE

I haven't looked into it very deeply but I think it happens when the carrier the planes are trying to land on is meaningfully far away from the group center. The bingo fuel calc is probably done from the group center, not the actual location of the carrier.

The BS Builder is running some command line programs, and I haven't gone to the trouble of making it fully multi-threaded, hence the "may have stopped responding" messages. So I don't consider it a problem, just a less than ideal situation.

Maybe it is the rail gun lobby causing trouble

Better to use the utility I made actually http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=228

That's an interesting turn of events, especially when the F-15 is proving that patches past original design lifetimes may not live up to expectations either (excepting of course total rebuilds like the AH-1Z). Tony out

Good to see some new faces, welcome

The range figure for the aircraft itself is used in two cases: 1. The platform display (information only) 2. If the aircraft has no loadouts (in which case I wouldn't be surprised if the game crashed so probably a non-entity) The internal fuel figure is only used in the Jettison weapons and extra fuel procedure and that code is not active in HCE (though it may become active some time in the future, I don't know).

Ralf, that has messed me up on occasion too! If you find the time, please add it to the Bug Tracker, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...p;showproject=6 it would be nice if the Orders Writer warned the user. Thanks for figuring it out

Our shot at having a demo version has arrived. Just like ANW has a USNI demo, we will have a similar arrangement. Demo version of the game with... USNI BattleSet rebuilt. The present plan is for Brad to whip up the database and I'll re-craft the scenarios. At Rene's behest I examined his database (turns out the wrong one) and decided it wasn't the way to go for this project though the offer was much appreciated. Depending upon timing I'll probably make two versions of each scenario, one for play by Blue, the other by Red. WestPac BattleSet including a couple of new scenarios. If you craft scenarios that would be of interest to current USNI trends, feel free to make a bid to have them included. HCDB will be the database. The demo will expire at some date and time, to be determined. I'll do what I can within reason to lock out other battlesets, there will be no scenario editor, and such (which is a bummer, but we are getting a demo...). If anyone wants to craft custom graphics and sounds, we'll be happy to evaluate them for inclusion. I think given the above, we're going to need a good bit of play testing of the scenarios as they come off the assembly line. I'd guess a couple of weeks from now the fun will start. If you have other suggestions, feel free to voice them.

Just so everyone is clear, the USNI rebuilds will be headed up by me using a DB created by Brad and Rene's efforts are an exercise in the what if and not to see the light of day past this beta area. Any assistance anyone wants to render is appreciated.

I think the mindset is that even if the carrier found a submarine, the carrier would not be allowed to kill the submarine until the submarine fired some torps. That has always bothered me, good way to lose multiple carriers on day 1 of the war. Almost too bad there isn't a precedent for killing subs with xx nm of a carrier, battleship, whatever the arbitrary classification is for the fictional rule.

I've modified the forum source code to show all members that belong to a particular group (when at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?act=Members). I for instance am part of not only the Staff Pukes group, but also HCBeta (and others), previously the filter by group would only show me in the listing for Staff Pukes, now it will show me in the listing for any of the groups that I am part of. Makes the searches much easier. That said, any official update to the forum software may overwrite my change so holler if it disappears and you want it back.

Today I finally did the March 1, 2008 review of beta testers and we lost five of our members due to insufficient contribution and/or not renewing NDAs with AGSI. Time to recruit your friends and enemies to the effort. Still here (next review 2008/06/01): Akula CV32 TonyE Bret McKee UncleHarpoon RalfKoelbach Divefreak Gopher Stalintc TEPonta wombat1417

commondb.rsr for Brad (and maybe Ralf)

We've had a couple of situations now where Victory Conditions have a ship/sub subtype that is not even in the scenario. I need someone to take charge of the situation and tinker with a database to see what effect changing the subtypes has on scenarios already created with the database. General suggested procedure: Make a scenario, use both type and subtype in various VCs, note the type/subtypes you used in which VCs. Modify the database by editing the lVictoryType table for VCs in your scenario. Modify the database by editing the lPlatformSubTypes table for VCs in your scenario. Check and see if your VCs are still applicable to the platforms in the scenario. The idea is to see if database maintainers need to keep the Platform SubTypes and Victory Types static throughout the life of a database (i.e. saying NEVER change a subtype or victory type once it has been added to the database for fear of breaking existing scenarios).

I'm not having any troubles here. Are you making new orders files or editing old ones (my test was making new ones).

Herman has started making entries in the Bug Tracker. In the 'forum options' of each Bug Tracker project you can set what kind of notification you want of new posts. There are a few unfiled bugs there that need verification. We also have two builds since the 2008.025 and no verification of the changes that I've claimed to have made. Please contribute or I'll have to get mean (or something). Yes, Brad and Rene are pretty much excused since they are hard at work with databases and scenarios. Thanks guys, I know testing specific items isn't very fun but it is one of the more important tasks for beta testers now that we have end users doing the normal playing of the game (unlike 2003 - 2007 when the only people playing WERE beta testers).

False echos - succinctly explained. Can you give any more detailed information on how long it might take to determine that a contact is a false echo, how that procedure has changed with changing technology, any other helpful information? False contacts are in the code of HC, it was disabled at some point and there are no comments as to why (though I've often wondered, I've also never turned them on 'just to see what would happen').

File Name: BB Texture - CleanTopo2 File Submitter: TonyE File Submitted: 18 Mar 2008 File Updated: 18 Mar 2008 File Category: Tools/Docs Authors: TonyE Map Texture file for the BattleSet Builder. To use this file in a default installation, go to C:\Matrix Games\HCE\BSBuilder\map_img\ Rename your texture.tif file as a backup. Then download this file, unzip it to C:\Matrix Games\HCE\BSBuilder\map_img\ and it will be used when creating BattleSets in the BattleSet Builder. The original graphic comes from http://www.shadedrelief.com/cleantopo2/index.html All editing and sizing of the image was done by TonyE. There is no restriction on use of this graphic, attribution is always nice, Tom Patterson made CleanTopo2, Tony Eischens made it work for HCE. Big Caution - you may have difficulties getting a useable map from this with BS Builder versions before 2008.028. Contact me if you need the update in order to make use of this texture file. Click here to download this file

While the problem may not show itself in 2008.024 due to the changed gunnery, the underlying problem still exists as far as I'm concerned. Note for the asylum, Herman had marked this report as resolved (a heart)

That was fun and challenging and in the end I didn't stand a chance! I achieved minimum victory by finding and killing the encroaching land force (without loss!). But then a series of mistakes and intattention took their toll. Early on I lost my NH-90 helicopter to a Flanker (I think). I accidentally ran my Wedgetail out of gas so my eyes were lost. That led to even more losses of my Hawks without even finding the culprit. My surface group fended off a number of attacks but eventually succumbed to missiles. Gunfire was terribly inaccurate on both sides but I did sink one gunboat with gunfire. Thanks for the great scenario!

Playing in 2008.027, my first tanker split prompt lets me choose between either carrier, the more distant carrier is selected by default for some reason, I select the closer one and the empty tankers go to the closer one. The second set of tankers split from the group again showed both carriers for landing and this time the closer carrier was the default. Is there any chance the first set of tankers really took off from the more distant carrier? I found the situation strange in a few ways, we already knew tanking is still rather wacky, but have tankers split twice from a group is a new one on me.

What happened is there was no import of the database after you installed the patch and before you exported from the PE. Handily it is easy to rectify, look for start_edit.bat in your HCE directory and run it. Then you should be able to export from the PE (and running start_edit will not break your edits).

Okay, 24 more hours to make your case. Brad and I discussed on IRC again just now and are both satisfied that the approach below isn't outlandish. The implementation of choice at present is... Noise increases by 2 points per 10% damage until 50% damage, and 1 point per 10% damage thereafter (on the premise that once it is damaged to 50%, it isn't going to get much noisier).