TonyE

And fwiw I fired up HC97 and the F-15I didn't have any loadouts in the MEDC EC2000 battleset there either so it may well be a shortcoming inherent in the battleset from day 1 (I didn't have the patience to fire up Winharp...).

And there are bugs with formation keeping so if someone runs aground I could imagine the two displays becoming wildly out of sync over the course of a scenario.

I played the opening minutes of the scenario a couple of times. The first time I had the same results Brad did, no vectoring of AI fighters towards the E-2. But I was curious so I ran it again with E-2 radar on and again confirmed Brad's findings. For no particular reason I ran it again with the E-2 radar off and saw the AI send fighters to me. The only units reasonably close that could have had a detect were the drug runners. Having something to work from I loaded up the game in the debugger and managed to catch the detection without too terribly much work (luckily there aren't many detections going on at that point in the game so the data wasn't overwhelming). I suppose that's how I did it.

Nice work Don, I think you've got the hang of it

bump for 2009.054

I like to take one problem at a time and I think the screen-shot THB-1 and Joe's AAR at: are pretty hard to fathom. Fact: the hawkeye heading NE (high altitude, radar silent?) has been detected by Red and the closest CAP (from one of the base formations) has been sent to intercept. Questions: 1/ what type of detection. I'm baffled (unless Victor's idea about neutrals?) Guess what , the Neutrals are working for the North Vietnamese in 2009.50-53 (and earlier). I'll post a 2009.054 in a bit (running the build right now). It may also be true that the AI fighters don't give up the chase after contact is lost. I'm not certain but it would be great if someone would make a test scenario. Situation: 1. E-2 radiates and gets picked up by ESM. 2. AI vectors fighters to intercept. 3. E-2 turns off radar, continues on for more than 10 minutes (time for uncertainty zone to go away) but stays outside of radar detection range. 4. E-2 turns 180 degrees or otherwise severe course change. 5. AI fighters may follow the course change even though the E-2 should no longer be detected (this is what we're looking for and testing). So if someone can set that up (I imagine 3-4 units, Red installation with ESM, red fighter, blue e-2 or larger plane, and a platform from which the blue plane can take off). If you are able to make the steps happen post up an Issue please in the Issue Tracker.

You sure can

The database is exactly HCDB something as listed down in the status bar of the game. HCDB-091024 according to my copy. That would be http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...load&id=385 for use in the full HUCE and for examination in the PE.

It has been known to happen. That is one of the items that will be taken care of by the massive code re-work I'm doing at present (in prior versions, including 2009.050 neutrals are really an offshoot of the AI side so it has taken trial and error to eliminate all of the spots where neutrals might leak information to one side of the other). I think in 2009.050 we prevented the whales from be blubber mouths but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

True, it looks like surface PD isn't listed though you could look in the DB for that if you got really curious. Range is indeed wrong there, that would be the range if Amberly were an aircraft target (I derived that from the Radar RCS worksheet). What version of the game are you using? HCE - 2009.053 - 2011/03/10 =========================== - Chg:0000 GE Radar model was treating land installations like aircraft so possible detection ranges were way too large. (thanks Brad)

Server running again, see first post of thread, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...post&p=2238

Looks like you forgot to use the build made for you with the logging of AAM hit resolution. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=197

No, you cannot impact the AI's ESM capability and it cannot impact yours, ESM is there regardless. You should have experienced by now that radar on/off does not affect the same side's ESM.

Thanks to a request from Darren and permission granted by AGSI, DBComp development has resumed as of two days ago. The dear desire is for a functioning version by the end of the weekend. Even if that happens it will not be feature complete (i.e. it will hopefully not crash but it definitely will not handle every field and flag in the DB).

We get by on a technicality here . The active jamming doesn't work unless the jamming platform's radar is turned on so you get ESM detects of the jamming platform but not the jammer itself. Same difference . Yep, there is a DATA value for each loadout that does indeed dock you for lugging around a bunch of weapons. The game used to automatically jettison weapons of planes that knew they were being attacked, hopefully we'll be able to turn that on again someday (at least for multiplayer as a hotkey. of course I'm not sure the hotkey doesn't work {I don't recall what the hotkey is/was atm, someone else might}). Pretty much the same here, alpha tester->beta tester->minor programmer->agh-everyone else bailed now I'm the programmer. I have written some good and elegant code for the game and much in my professional life but at heart I'm a hardware guy (as in resistors, capacitors, and transistors). But alas the need for hardware in small business was much less than software and integration so I adapted.

The two heights are taken into account but they are not shown since they were not an item in question when looking at radar (we know they are right and work right, the logging capability was made for debugging, not general interest but obviously it can be used for both). The crazier thing is that no matter the die roll the Hornet would have maintained contact with the Wedgetail. The radar model says that if you are already tracking the target, detection is automatic if you are within range. Your theory is correct, if die is less than PD and all other conditions are met, you should get a detect. The limitation in the case you list is that the target is at 124nm and the radar has a range of 113nm against the target so no detect due to range. RCS does not affect probability but it is a major factor in the ARng vs ARng calculation. The bigger ARng being the raw radar range from the DB and the smaller being the range when RCS, weather, and whatnot are accounted for. There is no logging for ESM. So I suppose you add it to your wishlist.

I think the fat kid got off the far end of the teeter-totter and the slippery slope is now in effect

Probably a fairly decent OOB estimate http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291275907784.pdf

Yay, hoist a green beer and celebrate the battle won, as for the war we shall see.

As always, send the person over please.

We need help in EVERY area. Clear enough? That said, nobody whose name isn't Bret McKee or Brains will get access to the code on day 1. Anyway there is plenty of programming to do without having the game source code (writing utilities, export DLLs, etc.).

Hehe, and with the plane numbers... How you worded your original observation suggested that the game added rand(750) + 50 aircraft to the scenario upon load and that rand was broken. Whereas the game does not add a random number of planes at all, it adds specified blocks of planes chosen by the scenario author, based on fixed percentages as we've now repeated in near communication.

All a volunteer needs is to be registered at harpgamer.com forums and start participating. Some don't even do that and converse entirely via e-mail. A person need not even contact AGSI to help with HC and AGSI would rather not spend any time at all on us since that is less time they then have for H3. However, if a person gets to the point of seeing the code then we'll have to get that person to sign an NDA with AGSI. Yes, we are extremely lucky to have the volunteers that we have but we are also in need of many more with a variety of skills. VitP, he writes documentation and made the keyboard command cards, BS Builder manual, and more. But he's been waiting on feedback for nigh a month now because I haven't taken the time to do that. Look at donaldseadog, Buddha, and company come to these threads, they are trying to reduce the burden on Brad and myself so that we can make more magic happen for them. Nobody asked them to come but they are some of the volunteers and you'll find them in the credits of the game and recognized in the ReleaseNotes.txt file and participating here and in the beta area. Recruiting and developing volunteers is very time consuming. By re-engaging you the last few weeks that is exactly what we were trying to do, develop your very real skills into something that will push the game forward. Hopefully that will still happen but I think Brad and I have provided what guidance we can, if the others can take you the rest of the way we'll all be better for having another useful contributor. So yes, we even need volunteers to make volunteers, the need is great and I fear most Harpoon players are conditioned to keep their heads down so the challenge is extra difficult.

Don, you are correct (and thanks)! VitP you can see some more verbage in the beta testing area general forum in the beta tester manual http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3574

Tony say DATA is used in missile evasion and can have a large impact. before modifiers hit chance is missile ph - target ATA + 30 So missile with ph of 70 fired against an unloaded Harrier II with DATA of 40 give a rawish chance to hit of 70-40+30 = 60%. A F/A-18C/D with unloaded DATA of 20 against that same ph 70 missile: 70 - 20 + 30 = 80% rawish hit chance. Let's just say it gets ugly for C-5 Galaxies