donaldseadog

Issue Information Issue posted by broncepulido Issue ID#000204 Issue TypeIssue Severity0 - None Assigned Status10 - Confirmed Version2017.013 Fixed in I did observe many irregularities in the Syrian PTG boats in the A Passage to Lebanon scenario, apparently Syrian boats don't abandon their original courses even after detected enemy ships, but they increase speed to maximum, keeping their original courses, don't approaching enemy ships. Trying to isolate and reproduce the effect, and before the "experiment" is a success (In the current scenario Blue ship is not yet detected by Red ship, for verify if course is changed), I did observe another problem: As after 16 hours gameplay, Red Ships abandon her planned path and go right north to running aground in the south coast of Turkey! And the same of application to the red submarines behaviour on this expanded scenario, including subs. But Red submarines don't change bearing NEITHER speed after Russian AWACS detection of enemy ship (Spanish PG Tagomago). As mentioned previously, Red ship increases speed to maximum after detecting foe, apparently to approach foe, but is incapable to change bearing! See attached file. Late Standard HCDB2 and Middle East Battleset, In this case is employed 2017.014 build. Attached Files TEST RED SUB NO CHANGE COURSE 2017-11-25.zip 2.27KB 3 downloads Quote broncepulido Dec 08 2017 05:48 AM Same when returned to 2017.011 !!!! Quote broncepulido Dec 08 2017 08:19 PM Perhaps it's fixed as "virtually tickled" the AI Settings forcing AI to stay in plotted path? Quote TonyE Dec 13 2017 01:51 AM In starting to troubleshoot this one I found a few bugs in the XML Scenario file format. That format isn't used by the GE yet to load scenarios but it is a tremendous troubleshooting aid for me. Anyway, those bugs have been fixed so I can finally take a look at the course issue. Quote changed status to: 10 - Confirmed TonyE Dec 13 2017 06:36 AM Findings: 1. The Red ship is detecting the Blue ship. 2. eff113 (Ship AI) determines that the Blue group is out of range (weapon range == 8nm, Ship to Ship distance == 11nm) 3. eff113 posts a EnemyAIEvent so the AI remembers to close and attack. 4. eff113 effect4.c ~line 2750 does a distance check that says since we're within 10nm of weapons range, to look at attacking again. At first glance, we'd expect a could change order here to intercept the target. Next steps: 5. Ponder if weapon range + 10nm is some magic value that properly indicates when a course change to intercept makes sense. 6. Consider how that 10nm 'buffer zone' makes it possible that intercept will never occur if the two groups' paths intermingle just right. Quote broncepulido Dec 13 2017 09:58 AM Wow! Quote TonyE Jan 04 2018 12:52 PM This is not indicative of forward progress but the Red ship did fire on me and ultimately sink me this evening... Logging begins. Version = 2018.001, Build Date = Jan 3 2018, Build Time=14:21:52 21 Dec 1985, 20:59:56 SetCourseGroup ZZR old=358 new=243 eff113 effect4.c 2782 ... 21 Dec 1985, 21:05:30 0 of 1 bursts hit for 0 DP 21 Dec 1985, 21:05:30 Enemy Unit ZZ000 (Okba) fired 1 x 76mm/62 Compact HEX10 bursts at AA000 (Tagomago), Tubes=1, Mounts=1, ROF=10, Firing=1, LeftToFire=6, FireAgainIn=6 seconds. 21 Dec 1985, 21:05:30 0 of 1 bursts hit for 0 DP 21 Dec 1985, 21:05:30 Enemy Unit ZZ000 (Okba) fired 1 x 76mm/62 Compact HEX10 bursts at AA000 (Tagomago), Tubes=1, Mounts=1, ROF=10, Firing=2, LeftToFire=0, FireAgainIn=6 seconds. ... 21 Dec 1985, 21:05:34 Friendly Unit AA000 (Tagomago) was hit 1 times for 4 DP. 21 Dec 1985, 21:05:34 1 of 1 bursts hit for 8 DP Impact 21 Dec 1985, 21:05:34 Enemy Unit ZZ000 (Okba) fired 1 x 76mm/62 Compact HEX10 bursts at AA000 (Tagomago), Tubes=1, Mounts=1, ROF=10, Firing=2, LeftToFire=0, FireAgainIn=6 seconds. 21 Dec 1985, 21:05:34 SetCourseGroup ZZR old=243 new=243 eff113 effect4.c 2782 ... Quote Report broncepulido Jan 05 2018 01:45 AM Sorry, the tread name is ambiguous, enemy ships change speed but not course, enemy subs apparently don't change speed nor course. And yes, the human side is attacked with weapons in range, the enemy AI is clearly to sunk the opposition forces. Quote Report broncepulido Mar 24 2018 01:02 AM For me this bug is a priority, if not solved I'm incapable to design any new scenario. Thanks by keep the programm alive, Tony!!! Quote Report Red subs (and ships) not change speed or course after foe detection - HarpGamer.pdf TEST RED SUB NO CHANGE COURSE 2017-11-25.zip

I downloaded a pdf writer last night and am going to give it a go. Obviously crossing my fingers will not help so I'm crossing my toes

Tony,I think the old Issue Tracker is being phased out (as it will not run with some intended upgrades to the forum) and that the new defect tracking facility is taking its place, at least as I understand it. TonyE has just moved the issue over.

hmm,I think I'd go in two parts: 1/ set max (clckwise limit), start at 000-045 sect and step thru each sector clockwise, if the sector is used set (reset) the max limit to the clockwise boundary for that sector; 2/ then set min (counterclock limit) by starting with the 315-360 sctor and going counter clockwise, if the sector is used set (or reset) the counterclock boundary to the sectors min boundary.However I suspect that once that was put into code it would be a bit cumbersome and I'd think of something else Nope, that'sno good

and I thought I was getting a sore head. I like the approach of multi ring patrols behaving as per the inner most ring of its assignment. perhaps surface vessel should also vary from course to avoid shallowing water?

what I noticed last night withrespect to this is that the aircraft that run out of fuel don't seem to be in a proper formation, when you look at the formatino editor some 'patroling' air units aren't listed by patrol type (eg 'asw') but by their class description (eg MV-22b Osprey). The "delete patrol' button is also greyed out. This list of errant air units sits above those that are correctly patroling.

Oh dear, I've done nothing with harpoon for , I can't remember but I should be starting to get back into the swing, first up I need to get ontop of the new stuff that Tony has given us, update my old utilities then have a closer look at the above suggestions by Tony, which look quite doable.

the game engine programs you can download from this site are mostly developmental 'beta' programs that usually play well but aren't perfect requiring feedback and further development. The last few were proving very naughty and got taken away to the corner until they learn to behave These programs provide unit information to external programs like toolbox in a different way to previous, toolbox 1.5.2 uses the old system, toolbox 1.6 uses the new and was produced before the new programs were (temporarily) removed. I hope that explains why toolbox 1.6 is there but seems to be of no use (at the moment)

So I should stay with 2015.027? it seems to me that 2016.003 works quite well. I think that is still available in the "Latest File" download. but I wouldn't say there was anything wrong with 2015.027 As to the two available toolbox, both perform pretty much the same, the later version is altered for compatibility with internal changes to the Game Engine in the most recent, not now available, versions. I should remove it i guess untiil the newer GEs are back on line . . . ? 2016.003 doesn't work with Toolbox 1.6, I've been trying it, 1.5 works fine. Not finding units. That's correct, there is currently no available game version with which toolbox 1.6 is compatible. toolbox 1.5 is the latest version operable with available games.

That sounds a bit optimistic I'll just quietly put the latest toolbox and lazgui-ext back up in the downloads and work on my svn technique. I want to start utilising the selected unit and selected group pointers too, so maybe another update soon. Also well overdue is to better finish the asw and aew patrols, and refine the airborne asw attack.

The file information in the download summarises. It really doesn't do anything other than give you information about some of the Game Engines activities and so doesn't help play a game, but it does allow you to see some of what the game internals are up to.

So I should stay with 2015.027? it seems to me that 2016.003 works quite well. I think that is still available in the "Latest File" download. but I wouldn't say there was anything wrong with 2015.027 As to the two available toolbox, both perform pretty much the same, the later version is altered for compatibility with internal changes to the Game Engine in the most recent, not now available, versions. I should remove it i guess untiil the newer GEs are back on line . . . ?

which game build/ version are you using. also it runs in its own window, double check it isn't hiding behind harpoon window.

I thought I'd just add a note that I've uploaded modified versions of my toolbox and my extended version of TonyE's lazGUI so as to operate with the GEs since 2017.05. While the internal game changes are being implemented by TonyE these two tools may or may not work, but I'll try to keep them upto date. Also I'd be interested if there are any comments on features within my extended lazGUI that users of toolbox would like (eg the expanded unit information within startgroup?) I also haven't done anything to my other tools such as AAR-report, so any comments would be interesting. (I kind of play with this stuff on the assumption no one else finds it useful so I don't exactly go overboard )

That sounds like a toolbox bug do you have a game save? what did the negative values relate to? were all units capable of In Flight Refueling? Was it the group or each unit that showed 0% bingo? If you are a significant distance from base (and using in flight refueling) you might be better off looking at cruise range rather than % bingo because some units will be at 0% bingo when you need to refuel. Generally it doesn't matter which group joins which except if there is more than one tanker unit the refueling will be done by the first tanker unit, so if there were tanker units in both original groups then their order in the final group will vary.

Well, summer (in the southern hemisphere) isn't my active Harpoon time, I haven't done anything I'm afraid. I'm just starting to get my head working again so don't have any plans and since you're still interested I'll put this on top of list, although I'm not sure how friendly it will be. Don

I've not done much (other things happening) but have started and got to the stage where I needed to know more about your interface. I thought I'd down load your program but I don't use microsoft office so it looks like no point. My first question is if you navigate around using the tab key do you get a verbal of button text, my main hang up at the moment is that I can't see a way of doing key board shortcuts. Don

Plenty of interesting things happening here recently I see I'm assuming you're playing with the standard game engine from the installation? Why I ask is that one of the many advances that Tony has given us in the various betas is the ability for us to write external library files that are mini external programs. Some of the features I've written in my 'toolbox.dll' could be further massaged to carry out some of your needs, but I think I'd need to streamline some aspects and house them in a new library. Specifically: surface groups can be automatically brought together and joined, then continue on one of the groups original course ( I currently do it only for air groups); an air group (such as an ASW group) can be given a spiral type search pattern centred on a point being a known submarine contact - this point could be altered to be related to an uncertain fix or a distance bearing; While toolbox doesn't do it I'm certain: a group course could be built up using bearing/ distance instead of mouse clicks; when filtering through enemy contacts the group ID could be used even when no exact fix is given and data could be presented to indicate the size of the contact uncertainty region and something like distance and bearing from your closets group. This would need you to install say the latest beta upgrade (available from this forum) and I would have to improve the switching from the main game to the library controlled features (I might need guru help there) I'll start toying with what I have and see how I go and let you know if it seems worth your while installing the beta upgrade. Maybe some of it can actually just be new information pop ups running in the game?

I think the overhaul would be very good. If Tony can rig an auto load of correct database that would be sensational but even without I don't see loss of backward compatibility being a real problem, to me it seems we're just picking the right database for the scenario (same as if the scenario had a non-standard DB). I think the general tidy up, improved 'sense' and release of wasted slots as being very worth while.

This is lucky, we farm goats and I was going to offer a solution based on how we deal with old grumpy goats

I got quite excited for you when Tony mentioned he was headed in that direction with the database in exportDLL stuff. (I'm away for about a week or 10 days and had some prep work to do so can't help, though would love to)

What do people think about AI "knowing" victory conditions and using that information to influence its play? I haven't thought much about it and don't know how it would be done (I think it could) but I like the idea of AI having some sort of ranking of importance regards its targets. I'm still plodding along looking at some simple games and what AI is doing but not yet learned enough to try out anything. I'm also wondering about how people approach situations were a new contact is made, what do you do?

I'll start looking at what is exposed via the exportDLL functions and see if there are some easy tweaks - better target value evaluation might be a goer.

I think Don would need some hints

Here are a few links I found interesting in looking at this: https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/comparing-modern-western-fighters/ http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=52006 http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf in the first link there are some figures for a few modern fighters giving instant and continuous turn rates, a continuous turn rate of 25 deg / sec looks like top dog ie ~ 8 secs for a 180 turn.I've only looked briefly but it looks like enough info to get a ball park figure for our factoring.