donaldseadog

Haha, next time just hoon in and try cannon?

I don't think that's ugly at all. I love it. Maybe load outs could have a range factor and be shared across multiple aircraft? Maybe don't need loadouts but compatible weapon bundles, each with its range factor? Maybe this could then even allow getting around the unlimited aircraft weapon situation? Very random thoughts.

I didn't realise the ge still made so much reference to the external db structure, I envisaged it filling pigeon holes with the external data then just referencing its pigeon holes, and by loading from multiple data base just filling more pigeon holes - kind of analogy. I'd been pondering ways of spreading the load of database management and flexibility in updating. I like your 'b' option especially if the scenario editor can choose from multiple database 🙂

If I have it right at game start the referenced database is loaded into memory and that's what the GE uses during play. In a vague random thought I wondered if it's feasible to load additional data from an "addendum" db file or two? Would that help? DonT

Hi Byron I wrote a little "helper" for starting the scenario editor mostly to more easily manage the database reference. Its in the downloads section and called (I think) ScenEdit Launcher - or similar. It lets you eg put differing database files in respective folders and named however you like. (Sorry I'm vague here but I'm working off phone on holidays) DonT

I'm going to vote hargamer forum on basis most people interested in participating will have an harpgamer account,

I don't know yet Eric, I might be away in caravan, our present plan, and we're often not in internet areas

I've been using these in the belly of F35s against ships with devastating results. They seem like cheating. One thing I quickly noticed was that you can launch them at the max range from any altitude, the limited data I could find specified that the range is significantly reduced when lunched from lower altitudes (as expected). Maybe some twweeking of database would be good now this sort of weapon is getting significant range (~60nm), or is it a game engine thing? Its so long since I looked at databases I can't remember if range against launch height can be specified, or is it a 'simulation thing' where the aircraft quickly climbs, releases weapon then descends so is effectively still low? They also seem to be very effective on large ships although only a relatively small payload, ?

Ok Eric, that looks easy. What is the TG column? Don

While looking at the frigate info link I saw this pretty cool critter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNZS_Canterbury_(L421)

I should have mentioned toolbox only shows the players magazines, all magazine data can be seen for each applicable platform in my DLL lazgui extention tool, which adds a few more functions to TonyEs lazgui tool.

I can say that this is getting closer, I have a start in my latest toolbox, so it is showing magazine content as the game plays. I'll fine tune it and then put the code into my AAR DLL so there'll be a status at game session end. There is quite a lot of data if the game has a fair number of platforms.

After four years of being out of date I've revised and uploaded the AARdata tool in the tools/mods section of the downloads. Sorry it's taken me so long This tool writes a txt file to your main harpoon folder AARdata.txt that holds info from the game play since the current file was started, so you can archive your old file (by changing its name or moving it to a different folder) before starting a new scenario and you'll have a record of major occurrences and time for the life of the scenario. I'll now start looking at provide a snap shot of the content of magazines to be included.

Toolbox exercise View File A very simple scenario allowing use of exportDLL "Toolbox" (obtained from the downloads - tools/mods/... section) to practice your skills in using IFR tankers to extend the range of air groups. A couple of few simple targets at long range from your airbases make it essential to use tanker supported strike groups. Submitter donaldseadog Submitted 07/11/2021 Category WestPac  

I hope to start looking at this soon, first step will be to put the data in my toolbox, once it looks OK I'll run something to spit out a text file (csv database kind of thing probably) at game end.

I did say I was slow didn't I

Toolbox, new version just uploaded, will let you half do what you want but the offset air units do not move in patterns relative to the group centre, they are just offset and can be set at their own altitudes. As said there isn't anything I know that lets you set the type of active formation you're after. In many ways you get a better result by splitting the units off into their own groups and seeing where they are relative to your 'main' group and managing them that way.

I think that was in the dos version? ! I can see it in my minds eye.

I love 3. I think when the scenario editor tests routes for groundings it can sometimes get it wrong, I assume because a unit in an outer ring of yhe formation can move around its designated segments and not follow a strictly defines course?

Ive got something in toolbox that lets you do this individually with aircraft units but I don't think I've done it so that it'll work with subs in a surface group. It would be simple to implement but would be great to be in the unit window operations.

I am half thinking the reports say "sinking" and that you can find ghost like critters in the unit window for quite some time untill they disappear and untill then they are a target that can be picked up by missiles. If you send two volleys of missiles at a target and the first inflicts 100% damage on the unit then it is removed from its previos group and a new group created with it as 00 unit, if you look at the second volley of missiles its target name has been amended to the units new designation. It sort of fits in. If the unit sinks (and no longer has its ghost showing) I think the missiles go "no target" state but i don't know if they get a trigger to start looking for a target like they would if launched "bearing only". A nice exercise to run perhaps?

common failure of mine (and I suspect I'm not alone in this) was that, having engineered a meeting of tanker and air group, I'd forget to 'join' them until it was too late, resulting in an embarrassing and vexatious big splash in an empty ocean 😱! A handy thing you can do when setting a "course" is to add a staff note (f10) at a course location, eg if manually joining groups at the end point add a speed (f3) "loiter" and staff note "join group xxa" . I often use it when setting up an attack so at the spot where I want to launch the attack I add the staff note "attack xxb?" This is how the staff notescome up at the end of a toolbox patrol or when a group has "covered" a targets previous known position. I have pondered if I could write a proceedure that would allow an enemy group sent to a patrol point to start seeking targets from there (but not before) I think that might be possible. That sort of thing can be done with surface groups but the scenario writer can't give airgroups involved courses, just simple patrol, attack or ferry.

Rescue, Im glad you find the toolbox useful. From memory I set out just playing with whatcould be done then added a few things I wanted, prominently IFR and vectoring groups together to join. It then grew. A lot of the functions are just to see if they work but really need fine tuning such as the "1 rep 2" which lets group 1 repair group 2 - I intend (one day) to limit its use to bases and supply type ships and operate on individual untis within. One limit in my mind is that too many functions available to the player, but not the AI only further gives advantage to the player, but some of the scenario writers are really good and they manage to make it hard for us by design I've been a landlubber for a few years and the toolbox does need someupdating, as well as fine tuning of some of the test of concept stuff. I'd really like to be able to drop 'pins' on the map to remember where targets lie (or did lie) in hiding after loss of contact.

I don't know if its best but I normally try to chew off closest targets, preferably after getting in a few anti radar hits. I figure they can act as a screen for the more valuable targets as well as a possible 'magnet' to a large scale strike on multiple targets. All guess work. It can get very fiddly, which isn't what I like, so I tend to attack in waves. If a big target has been hit and is sinking, I try to come in from a different angle.