Jump to content

donaldseadog

Members
  • Posts

    1,106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    63

Everything posted by donaldseadog

  1. Nothing to show anyone here but I went thru a number of permutations of patrol, split, join and rtb and only one caused a problem. ABA, a group of 8ac; 2 split off into AFA which rtb and all landed, 3 split off and rejoined ABA, rtb base the three original (AB000) landed none of the split/join ac (AB001) landed but stayed loitering/landing, ACA, a group of 2 patrol and rtb, all landed, ADA and AEA, two groups of 3 ac set off to patrol same area, AEA joined ADA then RTB, all ac of both units landed. A second run: ABA, a group of 4 t/o, 1 ac split to new group ACA, group ABA joined to ACA so have: AC000 one ac split from original ABA; AC001 two ac joined from orignal ABA; RTB ACA and AC000 (the single ac split from ABA to form ACA) lands, remaining AC001 fail to land. A somewhat involved build up of 'glitches'? starting from the initial group split?
  2. This might be useful? I've stripped out the other air groups other than AEA and reduced its unit number to 3 (still single aircraft units). It is continuing toward landing (on final, wheels down, full flaps?). The two game saves are from TDs test and a second apart xxx.0004 2 sec prior, xxx.0005 1 sec prior, to landing. I think the LandAirEvent triggers during xxx.0005 or next second of play for xx.0004. At that point there are two units remaining in AEA, one unit landed and readying and two zero aircraft PHUnit^.MyPlanes listed for AAC. TESTm(3).0009.zip
  3. An interesting aside, you can join (F7) the carrier group AAC to some of the stranded units of air group AEA and one (sometimes but not always more than one) will then go thru normal landing. If join two units then only one lands and the second is stranded as an inflight air unit of the carrier group. That stranded unit can be split from the carrier group and sent to land F6 in the normal manner and it lands normally.
  4. I ran TD's TESTm.hpm in 2024.001 with my AIWindow addon caputring the moment that the group AEA's landairevent triggers. AEA consisted of 9 units each a single ac. Sceenshots attached respectively show the group now consist of 8 units (unit 00 not there) (leaving the game run no more land), the event data for the landairevent that to me only indicates that the whole group is to land on unit 00 of group AAC, and the interesting info for the base carrier that there is a single landed f/a 18 (60 min ready time) and 8 zero ac planes - so the code here is listing down thru the carrier PHCUnit^.MyPlanes. To me some of the landing process for the remaining 8 units has occured but not completed? I'll keep lookiing to see if I can glean out info more useful.
  5. If the order of magazines is now correct I think bases should be good also. I did check sum type tests comparing the magazine.csv file before and after a import/export/import cycle (with no edits) and it passed while before this new PE the same test would fail. But the test doesn't pickup correct magagazines assigned to the wrong platfroms/bases. To me the biggest problem in correcting DB is that the errors were random, so could be anywhere. I pondered using LazGUI to run thru the DB loaded into the game and look for weapons in magazines not used by mounts of that platform, but kind of hoped people with th eproblem would nut out something else
  6. I added landAirEvent to my catchers mitt in AIWindow, it doesn't seem to have as much info as I'd thought it would thinking about otherevents like Join and Split. I was a bit after my brain's 8.30 curfew so another run tonight and I might gleen more out of it, but I didn't see anything differing between the working air groups and the disfunctionals. Looking at what I see I assume when a land order is given (either from within course edit or raw from the game play) that the course is edited to put a leg to the landing point and the landairevent at that point. the landair event seems to indicate if it's the whole group to land or if it's a unit of the group (so far only seen this if the landing unit is a patrol in a group eg carrier group). when the whole group it gives no info on the units or their structure. What seems to happen is that not all units land but also one ac from at least some of those units does land. Another thing is that the receiving unit (base unit) seems to get a plane entry allocation but with no ac in the plane, ther will be one of these (usually) for each unit that is hng up without landing clearance. So I'm guessing some of the landing processing is occuring? Maybe flight leader of lead unit isn't keeping track of his group makeup
  7. Control Tower defect The units that are stuck I think come from units that had originally been part of the original group but had been split off (F8) then joined (F7) back to the group. Maybe when the LandAir event was written for the group it cocks up the number of ac in those rejoined units as I think usually the rejoined units do get one ac to land. Should we get more data re that?
  8. the MS access runtime won't let yo ulook at that much detail (Mine won't anyway), but most of it you can see in the annex_mags.csv file in commondb/res folder
  9. OK, this type of corruption I think I can capture as it it caused by a magazine item having a weapon ID = 0 (thus the unknown weapon), but there are other corruptions that place a valid magazine in the wrong place so catching only this type of corruption isn't sufficient. It probably shows up in TE's LazGUI export.dll.
  10. I did some tests last night and one thing I found was that the only time I tried to link to an existing pfdataxxx.mdb file it failed, I had to import from the commondb files. I was able to import a known problem db and correct the magazines, export, test in GE, import and export again (to double check) and re test. All was good. I also did some new modifications of platforms and tested that their magazines were correct and that the magazine.csv files were unchanged if the magazines weren't altered and all good. I can not think of a way of actually correcting a corrupted database other than going back to a good one and redoing the modifications. One of the problems is that the corruptions seems to have been random, so it's hard to know where to look. Do you have a note of what changes / additions you've made? Are there many?
  11. I'm pretty sure the whales would elevate you in their esteem if this were to happen ...
  12. I'm not sure this should happen, and I can't duplicate it, but I picked up a contact by MAD (so that's got to be a sub I thought) and it turned out to be a school of shrimp! Unfortunately I throw a torpedo at them
  13. Not really an issue, but a bit funny, has anyone else noticed that a sea mine after detonating (and possibly sinking it's target ship) live on but minus armament. Unlike the Baka style weapon equipped suicide boats the sea mine doesn't self destruct once detonated. Don
  14. Yes and yes. Some of the HC recognised homing methods include active radar (missile has radar seeker) and InfraRed. Some have inertial guidance (with or without final guidance) so can be 'pointed' to a location and fired, if it has a afinal guidance system eg IR then it will start using that to look for a target once it gets to its 'aimed' location.
  15. Test uses mk13gmls (one armed bandit), 4 harpoon ssm available and three surface target in range. DB indicates only one harpoon can be fired at a time (single rail launcher) but the restriction isn't applied. Also DB indicates only two targets at a time but can target more. attached zip contains txt explanation of test, original scenario (Westpac BS) used in test, two saved game short cuts and screen shot to help explanation text. Procedure: start scenario mk13gmls.scq (use HCDB-140909 DB, Westpac BS), play blue, continue until detect three enemy ships. This point is save game mk13gmls-1 if you want a short cut. Attack (F1) the enemy and see that the computer allocation is correct for single rail GMLS assigning only one missile. (left diag in JPG file) but you can allocate any number up to the total local mag of 4 *. I have allocated three, one to each target and execute. Wait a little for missile flight part way to target, this is game save mk13gmls-2 and you can see right diagin jpg 3 individual misile units of a single group headed for their respective targets. 1/ Only one missile should be able to launch at a time, but can launch more. 2/ Only 2 targets ( I don't know why two on a single arm launcher but db says 2) should be able to be engaged but can engage more. * re the numbers, in a modified DB with 40 available harpoon in the mk13 I could launch all 40 at the one time. Don mk13gmls.zip
  16. I'm behind here, sorry. I'm getting a simple test scenario together but The problem we're talking about is surface to surface, primarily missiles where number of rounds fired at once is ignoring restriction of mounts/tubes etc and also targets. Guns aren't so bad they respect the tubes/mounts etc but I think they might be also ignoring the No. targets. I might have it loaded up in next two days.
  17. Does anyone recall an 'issue' (maybe a long time back) regards ships attacking snorkeling subs? I vaguely remember something about it, and want to look to see if there might be problems with having ships being able to attack snorkeling subs with naval gunnery. I want to have snorkeling subs as a simulation of ukraine type semi submerged fast attack drones.
  18. I'm thinking of having a go at writing a tool into one of my export.dll add ons that would let you (I hope) edit the magazine entries in the game, but I think it would need to be done every time you run the game in which case it is too fiddly, but I might give it a go and test it.
  19. Thanks Enrique, that's what I thought. In next couple days I'll put in a report post. I really only noticed this as I was looking at ways of overcoming the loss of reliable ship magazine for those of us that write our own database (or modify for our own use) and had thought of just adding weapons to the mount magazine but it got a bit silly.
  20. Just for run I loaded the mk 13 magazine with 40 harpoon and blew the autralian munitions budget to bits with a single firing of all 40 (from the one arm bandit)
  21. At the moment I'm just wondering if others have noticed this (it could be my imagination) and if so if it causes you any issues. Restrict yourself to ship vs ship. Compare say a single barrel single turret gun and single rail single mount missile launcher. EG 4.5" gun and mk 13 GMLS ( a late mod RAN Perth class I think has both, the mk 13 including harpoon in the mount magazine ). Say you have two targets or just want to throw plenty of metal. With the gun it works correctly, you can only fire one shell at a time and further allocated shells are fired at intervals (according to mount rate of fire), but with the missile launcher you can fire as many at once as you have on hand in the mount.
  22. I only just saw this post. I don't know how sophisticated the game is in this regard, but I think in the case of some missile with inbuilt active seeking this might be OK, but certainly it shouldn't be the case I'd think for something like an old sparrow that relies on the radar illumination from the firing platform. Does it occur with all AAMs?
  23. An interesting boat considering the described situation. I would have thought one small naval gun would be of more use than two missiles. It's nice and fast though, I'd guess that's essential considering smuggling
  24. THe example report is me playing your VENEZUELA ESEQUIBO scenario, Red Side, and trouncing the britts
×
×
  • Create New...