TonyE

In my book it is a question of how long to to do the TMA to determine the 55kt speed. With active sonar I'm guessing that will take at most 2 minutes with a decent staff. So I don't think the Krivak should run at the first hint of an active sonar detect but it also shouldn't take 10 minutes to confidently call the contact a torpedo.

, you stated my sentiments exactly.

Where I think enhancing the detail of sensor models really shines is in the WWI - Korea, if not Vietnam situations before Radar was king. Now with radar stealth it has some merit again if you can visually detect a contrail at 50nm (hence the long detection ranges when planes are at High or VHigh). When we replaced the radar model back in 2005 or whenever that hugely changed the game and if we can do the same for the other sensor models, including Visual, I think we'd be taking huge leaps forward in game capability, especially for multiplayer. Grab your Ultimate edition and play an old version with F-22 then try the current version in EC2003/WestPac with F-22, huge difference and that's with only one RCS number (but variable in many steps instead of about 4 steps of the previous model).

I go back to an issue report you posted, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=197 where you provided no metrics when given a GE built just to look at your issue. You said you ran through 12 times before posting the issue, how about running it twelve times again with the logging and see what results you get and whether they make sense? I fully expect you are seeing the game working correctly in that issue report, not some your computer only strangeness (I still don't buy the argument that your computer is special in that way). Provide the logs and the summary and I bet you'll convince yourself that the right number of F-15s are being downed. 12 plays is 24 x F-15. You see from the logging that the final hit chance is 80%, that means 19-20 shoot downs of the 24 planes if you hit exactly 80%, more likely even over 12 runs you won't be normalized right at 80%, consider 17 shot down at 70% (lucky rolls for F-15) and 21-22 at 90% (poor rolls for F-15). Then hopefully you can mark the issue as working as intended or if you still don't think it is make a case for why. (to me these expected results mesh perfectly with your stated results "Near 100% hit rate for AI's AAMs") This is what we're saying, you have the ability to provide metrics and specifics and saves and scens but you are not. It is even more puzzling when you are handed the tools on a silver platter and don't use them to provide the metrics that are needed.

Let's try not to get too pessimistic. We have the data to determine target aspect (emitter and target altitudes, headings, range) so we can determine the target aspect from as seen from each emitter. Nor are we forever restricted to a single average value, in my previous post you hopefully got the idea that we can modify the database structure (we just prefer not to without good reason since it is a pain) to hold multiple reflectivity values for a particular sensor band.

Hehe, tomorrow I hope to work on some HC code but true, we're quite a ways out from this particular modification.

This is a perfect opportunity to use the scenario editor to build a representative scenario for analysis and then provide the scenario and saved games from just before the SAMs start flying for play as each of Blue and Red sides. Such as scenario will have a ship on one side and a plane and launching platform on the other, plane attacks ship & missiles fly. Barring that, like every issue, now is the perfect time to provide the saves showing the behavior.

Hehe, yes, the platforms are all spheres to the game sensors.

A slightly dated screenshot if you don't want to take the latest beta for a spin yourself: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...ost&p=24165

Correct you are.

Line of sight Large Ship to VLow for radar is 26nm in the game (radar horizon) so the jamming should not help you (other than point defense to reduce the SAM Ph). Large Ship to Low is 53nm

In the 2011.001 GE with the latest HCDB we have... Prowler ECM value 50 Admiral Lazarev (sorry if I picked wrong 'Kirov') longest ranged radar 300nm Top Pair SA-N-6 range 81nm In this situation the Prowler would loiter at 81nm and reduce the Admiral Lazarev's radar range to 227nm, not much improvement and doesn't decrease the SA-N-6 envelope at all. In the hypothetical case that the GE would use directors we could do like the book and jam the Palm Frond directors 40nm range Prowler ECM value 50 Palm Frond 40nm range SA-N-6 range 81nm If the Prowler loitered at 81nm the Palm Frond would be reduced to 31nm. If the Prowler managed to get to 40nm the Palm Frond would be reduced to 7nm, really putting a hurt on the SA-N-6. Funny, I was just re-reading The Sixth Battle the last day and a half of my vacation, back to work tomorrow! Okay, never mind the hypothetical case, all it does is illustrate my ignorance. Brad tells me Top Dome are the SA-N-6 directors and Palm Frond are SS sets

I think this is a valid case to bring out the paper rules since this portion of the code is modelled directly to the paper rules (to the best of my current understanding). See specifically 5.4.2, 5.4.3, and 5.4.4 You all appear to be doing good work here, if you end up with a new visual model, great! When chatting with Brad long ago about database maintenance I think he said he thought entering 4 signature values per frequency band would be bearable (correct me if I'm wrong Brad). Those would be: Top/Bottom aspect Front aspect Rear aspect Side aspect In that case you need to agree upon both formulas for the raw detection (VitP is doing well there with raw physics with others helping bring in other aspects) as well as formulas for 'mixing' the signature values to give a value for any vector to the platform. We've already seen the other inputs available to you, 3 states for time of day (night, day, dawn/dusk) and 4 weather modifiers ( 0)no precip, 1)light rain/fog, 2)moderate rain/fog, 3)heavy rain/fog ). Visual.pdf

Nice job Mavfin . 3) is the only place I think there is confusion and rightly so since the game doesn't act like it should in some of these cases. The cases that don't work right are multiple aircraft or weapons in the same unit (we remember that if we launch 4 x F-14B with the same loadout it is one unit with four aircraft but if we launch 2 with Phoenix and 2 with Sparrow only then we have two units each with two planes). Detection is only run once per unit and having multiple aircraft or weapons in a unit does not increase the detectability of the platforms even though it should. Mavfin is otherwise correct that more units means more sensor attempts both on the emitting and detected sides of the fence.

It may only compound your annoyance but the current betas and the future versions of the game will have four group windows so you can zoom one in, leave one broad, etc. The gameplay on multiple monitors improves!

You are a sneaky one, I keep learning new tricks from you!

To your specific question the AI uses "Normal Surface SAM Fire Rate" and uses the "AAW Auto-Fire Range = 3/4 max" though the latter is a bit of a misnomer since often it is 100% of range for the player case and always 100% of range for the AI case. To your more broad question it is up to volunteers at present to assemble better documentation. VitP is the only person currently doing that and his keyboard command cards and BS Builder documentation are very much appreciated and more is on the way as you can see in the Manual/Help forum

You are all dancing right around the simplistic reason orders don't follow into saved games. The original scenario obviously has the orders in a separate file of the same name and that is exactly how the game engine connects the two, by filename. There is no mechanism currently in the saved game file that indicates what scenario file the saved game came from so there is no way to work back to the orders. Some random day in the future I'll change that but for now you are stuck with the workarounds suggested in this thread.

As programmer dude I very much like having courses set for both sides so that the scenarios are that much more useful for autotesting the game from the command line. The other huge help on that front is assigning formation patrols to the player side as well (then they have both courses and formation patrols to mix it up with the true AI side). That's my selfish reasoning anyway.

We have tools to read the EC2000 databases but not the older databases/battlesets other than using the debugger.

For the fun of it try running the H3Launcher.exe from the game directory and starting the game that way. If that fails, try it again but use the "Video and Sound" options tab to make sure you are running in Windowed mode. The patch you ran was ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/Harpoon-Ult...date-v3101a.zip right? If that all still doesn't work, let us know what operating system you are using.

Sounds to me like it is time for a saved game so we can all have a look-see. It would be much appreciated if you can come up with one Damascus, zip it and upload it in a post here. Thanks!

Start the game without using the launcher. When you are tossed into the random scenario, go to File\New to get to the battleset selector. Uncheck "instant action". Start any scenario and then exit the game. Now use the launcher like you were and life will hopefully be as you desired.

One would typically use the newest.

It will not since I haven't written any code to verify if the correct database is in place for those scenarios, making randomness in CDB battlesets chancy.