TonyE

There is none, please add a Feature Request to the Issue Tracker and I should be able to get it added within a few weeks. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/project-2-hce/

I have a different thought process. I have no better source than the H4.1 Smarter Radar model so that would be my point of reference to build HCRCS numbers. If H4.1 says I detect that Dergach at 52nm then I twist the dial on the HCRCS value until the HC radar model gets the detect at 52nm. Build enough data points and your broader "corrections" become more obvious. To me it looks somewhat like you are drifting in the breeze with no anchor from which to build your case. Your anchor might not be H4.1 radar. Find an anchor and build from it. The graphs and statistics are amazing and engaging but they aren't showing me much beyond dedication and effort (both key, but not getting you very far from what I can see). Brad goes farther, should your talent be aimed at building a better model? I can't answer that, the existing model is manageable and maybe it is better to get a foundation there or maybe the more detailed model we all want is just as worthy.

Naval Sitrep 17 shouldn't be available for free. It also isn't on the wargame vault as yet: http://www.wargamevault.com/browse.php?&keywords=naval sitrep&manufacturers_id=5404 There do appear to be a few physical copies for sale out on the Internet (e-Bay and some game resellers). You could also ask Bond & Carlson directly for that particular article and they would likely send it to you for free.

Speaking of calibrating, also don't forget H4.1 Smarter Radar https://www.clashofarms.com/files/Smarter%20Radars%20for%20Hpn.pdf If you try out some situations and need more radar data from the J1 annex, let us know and we'll see what we can dig up.

Still, the APS-138 data against the other targets in calm seas is giving you some data points. How about using those to make an educated statement about some of the existing RCS values in the DB? Don't forget the Radar RCS workbook, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/28-hc-rcs-worksheet/

Keep going guys, looking good so far. Brad is away for a week or so and may not be on the forum but I'm sure he'll jump back in when he returns. I don't agree with the 142 RCS for a Boghammer (a max detect range of 9nm when using a 360nm ranged radar) but I appreciate the arguments. In the Boghammer case I would look at vessels or sensors likely to be facing off against the Boghammer, then come up with a reasonable detection range, then work the RCS backwards from that. A starting place perhaps anyway.

Dergach doesn't look particularly stealthy to me. Methinks you have the beginnings of a case to modify a lot of ship RCS values in the database. You've shown a few examples of perhaps too short detection ranges. At what range do you expect detection of those platforms? Is there a general pattern across all ships (or within one or more types of ships) that would be handy for Brad (i.e. all Frigates need their RCS values increased by 4)?

ANW is a further development of H3, not an add-on. I'm stubborn and tend to call any version of H3, H3 . If you are "buying new" your only choice is buying the Ultimate Edition from Matrix and customizing from there. Just like HC, H3 has a user-editable database. You've listed various user-maintained databases for H3. The one thing everyone agrees on is that you should use one of those and not the stock database that comes with the game. Then you need scenarios that match the particular database. It is entirely reasonable to have multiple databases installed for use with your game. We tend to be HUD4 folks around here but that is for ethical and community politics reasons. Much enjoyment can be had with any of the listed databases.

Welcome Scott! The game is indeed very different than it used to be and continues to change (albeit at a leisurely pace lately) thanks to the participation of the members here at HG. We are always looking for more feedback and participation so don't be a stranger.

Going active because it is your only reasonably ranged sensor always makes my skin crawl. You have no other choice yet it broadcasts your location far and wide. Cheers for going for it and making it work!

HCE - 2014.010 - 2014-05-23 =========================== - Chg:I073 GE Re-enabled a number of logging messages in Debug builds and made sure they will show information for the enemy side when ShowAll is activated. This will inform the player what happened to the missiles when they "disappear". (thanks Brad) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-73-terminal-engagement-sometimes-does-not-occur/

HCE - 2014.009 - 2014-05-22 =========================== - Chg:I072 GE The Debug only log message for Torpedo and some other weapon hits that was at times showing a very large # of DP imparted was technically correct (Keel/Pressure Hull crits do 30,000 DP) now has its wording changed for that critical hit type. The message will now only show for the player side unless Show All is enabled. The messages will continue to only show in debug builds. (thanks Enrique) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-72-another-overflow-computing-damage-points/

eeustice, thank you for taking a go at trying to improve missile guidance. I'm not going to directly answer your questions because I don't see a lot of value there. Instead, here are some assumptions I think are fair to make and some pointers to guide everyone's investigation of missile guidance. All of the questions below are rhetorical, I'll leave it to you all to pose the real questions and formulate answers. Assumptions: 1. The AI can fire on targets that are not localized just like the player. 2. The AI will not make entirely blind BoL shots. The AI will fire torpedoes down the bearing of an incoming torpedo without a detection on the firing platform but I don't consider torpedoes "missiles" for the purpose of the missile guidance discussion. 3. A missile knows where it came from (so you can check if the firing platform still has the target in its sensor arc). 4. A missile can store an expected intercept lat/lon as well as keep track of an expected time to intercept (in seconds). 5. A missile can store a reference to a prospective target. 6. Assume the missile is already fired, we are not figuring out how to decide whether a missile can be launched. It has been launched at a specific target unit that may have an exact or a estimated position. Pointers: 1. Consider each of the missile flags/codes in the PE (Platform Editor). How should they interact? Does a missile with both Semi-active and Inertial flags keep on towards a target if the shooter is destroyed or stops guiding?... 2. Missile guidance is handled once per game second so you do have some fine-grained control. 3. How should missiles navigate to the target (lead, lag, pursuit, ...) 4. When should missiles switch from one type of guidance to another (does it depend on missile speed, target speed, time to expected intercept, type of guidance, ...) 5. Consider other missiles as well, not just AAMs. Most of the rules will most likely apply to most of the missile types. Thoughts: 1. If a radar guided missile's launching platform is killed, should third-parties (i.e. an AEW plane) be able to keep giving that missile updates on the target position? What about other missile flags... 2. If a missile is fired to intercept a missile, should it be allowed to hit a plane instead of another missile? 3. In what situations should a missile only strike the intended target versus any target in the vicinity? 4. I looked through the H3 paper rules and there is very little to steer the discussion. I have not examined the H4.1 rules for such information. Missile Guidance Flags: Inertial guidance Terminal guidance Semi-active guidance IR/laser guidance Radar guided Mid-course guidance Command guidance Anti-radar (more a capability than guidance type) All-aspect (not strictly guidance but could affect seeker cone) Dogfight (not strictly guidance but could affect seeker cone) Land attack (more a capability than guidance type) Ship attack (more a capability than guidance type) Anti-radar (more a capability than guidance type)

2014.001 - 2014-05-20 Updated to only allow selection of one player side in GE newer than 2014.001.

HCE - 2014.008 - 2014/05/18 =========================== - Chg:I064 GE Ferry missions should no longer land on platforms where they can't land (i.e. F/A-18 won't land on DDGs) (thanks Grumble) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-64-ferry-0/

HCE - 2014.007 - 2014/05/17 =========================== - Chg:I071 GE Midcourse guided missiles were overflying targets on a regular basis. Attempted to fix that. (thanks Grumble) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-71-phoenix-edge-case-number-4-4/

Welcome, the spot to ask those questions would be: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/forum/5-scenario-design-discussion/

HCE - 2014.005 - 2014/05/10 =========================== - Chg:I066 GE Yet More fun attempting to fix edge-case bugs in InterceptAngle. Fixed a bug in GetRangeBearing that was returning the wrong bearing in edge cases. Hopefully fixed now. HCE - 2014.006 - 2014/05/10 =========================== - Chg:I070 GE Midcourse guided missiles will now update the missile's internally stored location of the target at each midcourse update, previously the original intercept location was kept by the missile which resulted in crazy maneuvers when the missile transitioned out of midcourse guidance. (thanks Grumble) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-70-phoenix-bug-rising-from-the-ashes

HCE - 2014.004 - 2014/05/09 =========================== - Chg:I066 GE More fun attempting to fix edge-case bugs in InterceptAngle. In this particular case we fix a bug in the situation where the Target is not moving. Occasionally the unit/group intercepting would take on a course 180 degrees from the desired course. That should now be fixed.

While I encourage everyone to try virtualization (makes any serious computer user's life much much better), if you have no desire to use the scenario editor I'd just skip over version 1.62B. You can run HC97 and newer GE's on your new machine without setting up a virtual machine. As for interest, I for one am still interested in your AARs! Thank you

Windows 8 does not come with Windows XP Mode, only Windows 7 Pro, Enterprise, and Ultimate did. For Windows 8 you would have to use one of the 3rd party products. I used VMWare, TeTeT has suggested another.

WinHarp 1.62 is a 16-bit application and will only run on 32-bit versions of Windows (or a virtual machine running such). You are probably trying to run it on a 64-bit version of Windows (which will not work without virtualization).

HCE - 2014.003 - 2014/04/17 =========================== - Chg:I068 GE Another attempt at preventing missiles from going into terminal search very soon after launch. Missiles weren't being given a non-zero time to activation upon launch so they would flip into terminal acquisition after travelling only 1 second intertially. (thanks eeustice, CV32) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-68-launch-tasm-at-identified-contac/

HCE - 2014.002 - 2014/04/06 =========================== - Chg:0000 GE Game Status dialog will no longer show the "no picture" graphic in the green neutrals box. - Chg:I067 GE When weapon seekers go active, ASW missiles could be mistaken for plain old missiles, causing a GetAnnex Error. This has been fixed. (thanks eeustice) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-67-get-annex-error-2014001

HCE - 2014.001 - 2014/04/04 =========================== - Chg:I066 GE The fix for I033 had a side-effect that BoL surface missiles and such would start their terminal search very soon after begin fired. That resulted in them being shot at by their own side. In this version, BoL missiles will not go Terminal immediately, they will stay (or go into, in the case of AAMs that have a launching platform lose fix on the target) in Inertial mode until the activation point. Anti-Air weapon sensors will now go active 10 seconds before expected impact. Anti-surface weapons will still go active 30 seconds before expected impact. Once a terminal seeker goes active, if the original target is not within the seeker cone (45 degrees of missile heading), the missile will not "re-find" the original target like it was doing. That resulted in crazy 180s and such once the seeker activated. - Chg:0000 GE Fix crash overflow bug when clicking units in the Unit window. - Chg:0000 GE Switched to Visual Studio 2013 compiler. - Chg:0000 GE Renamed the game to "Harpoon Classic" - Chg:0000 GE Started OpenMP tinkering (not active for anything yet) - Chg:0000 GE Added missing DIBAPI.H reference - Chg:0000 GE Extended beta timeout to 2016-01-01