donaldseadog

confirm that the visual detection is now working with or without the DLL in place (in export dll folder) Don

In MEDC (original) I've tried also F-16c, F-15C, S-3, F-14-D, & EA-6B, all crash on vlow flight. I've not tried any soviet planes. (ed:29apr11), have now tested all (I think) attack/ fighters including soviet. Not may vlow capable here. Don

I'm having some problems here. I'm using HCDB-110415 and Tony's BakaShip.hpm test scenario. With the sensorvisualH3.dll file in the main folder (I'd thought it should go into exportdll folder but it didn't seem to work there) I get a visual ID occurring correctly but with no file or file in exportdll folder I get a program crash 19 out of twenty times. On the one occasion it didn't crash I got a detection by means 'none' and even when I sailed right over the top of the luxury liner I couldn't get a solid fix. With visual working OK the baka ship won't close and attack automatically, it will close but you have to guess when in range and manually give a second attack command. At least it does self destruct so that is fine. If of use I've attached a zip pack with two saved games showing these visual detect and crash problems, I start them at 60:1 time compress. Don visualDetectTest.zip

The top post in this thread will consist of lists of vlow capable planes for each of the early (pre EC2003) battlesets which have their own built in database. The information has been gathered by trial and error, it may be incorrect. Please contribute (additions or corrections) by adding a post, someone will put the information into this top post. Note1: When testing plane units appear to need at least two aircraft, all single plane units appear to be vlow capable. Note2: Vlow capability doesn't seem to necessarily follow on to later battlesets. the list currently shows those planes found to be vlow capable. Mostly attack and fighter planes tested at the moment. GIUK (original) F/A 18 Hornet AV-8 Harrier II GR.5 Harrier SU-24 A-6E Yak-38 MEDC (original) F-111F Tornado NACV (original) F.3 Tornado GR.1 Jaguar GR.1 Tornado F/A 18 Hornet A-6E AV-8B HarrierII Yak-38 SU-24 IOPG (original) A-6E TRAM GR.1 Tornado F-111 F-15E GIUK HDSI (series 1 enhanced) Tornado GR4, ECR & IDS SU-24 MP & MK Super Tomcat 21 (oooh) F-111F, EF-111A F-15 Strike Eagle F-117A Harier II AV-8B & Harrier II plus A-6E TRAM MEDC HDSI (series 1 enhanced) Harier II+ & AV-8B Harrier II SU-24 MK & MP F-111F & EF-111A MV -22 & SV-22 Super Tomcat 21 Tornado IDS (last ed 18 May 2011)

While in this thread topic, mention was made that physically a radar type device is typically used to fly vlow. Anyway my querie is assuming this produces an elecromag signal that can be detected by esm, should the GE require some radar activation to fly vlow? Don

Spot on, use a 'zip' package.

That's not a bad idea, Don. Put it in the Scenario Design forum, and I will thereafter organize it into a sticky. Mavfin's post #16 in this thread looks like a good starting point.

Darren, Thanks. I look forward to seeing the new database when it is released. If I can think of any other suggestions, I will add them in this thread. (Actually, anyone else who wants to use the thread for that purpose is welcome to do so, too.) (By the way, I have sometimes half-seriously suggested adding a sea monster platform to the database--hey, Godzilla has sunk more shipping than most countries. It is totally ridiculous, of course, but you could actually put together some good scenarios with Godzilla/It Came From Beneath the Sea/Behemoth as the "bad guy." What do you think?) Mark I have official stats for Godzilla... I keep thinking about this (for short periods of time) and am intrigued as to how he (she?) is modelled as I think of Godzilla as a kind of amphibious submarine. Don

While that would be great, Brad, it's not the ones in the CDB/editable DBs that I would like to see labeled. I can check PE for those. It's the ones in the old DBs that I'd like to see statused for NoE. From Tony's comment (not easy to put into GE) and the fact that he and Brad have plenty to do, may be we could start a thread and as vlow capable planes are tested in the older (pre EC2003) battlesets we could post them, maybe have a thread for each battleset? Don

If the planes are close to bingo (and they'll be calculating their fuel relative to Vagar even though they know they can't land there) you won't be able to split them off. I don't know how close to bingo you have to go before you can't split them, maybe it isn't '0' but something a bit more for safety reasons. While putting planes in a formation about a base at which they can't land is a dodgy practice (as others have said) I'll admit I do it sometimes and if I do I make a conservative calculation of when I need to split them off to reach their home base and put a staff reminder (F10 keyboard command) in the system. If you are getting to the stage where they won't split off, my guess is you are too late to get them home in any case. While not the right place to mention, it would maybe be nice if we could put a tanker in the formation too (even if it can't land) and get an automatic refuel. Don

Add my vote for it being worthwhile. And thank you for all the work you put into doing this for us! I also think it would be worth while. A quite discouraging thing when you think you remember a plane being vlow capable, then you crash three at 30:1 time compression (IFR??)

From memory the skipper II problem was fixed in an updated database some time ago, maybe someone else can confirm that before I get back. However the updated database only work in recent (EC2003 and newer) battlesets and I don't know if you can use them in the demo, someone else will undoubtedly let you know on that. (edit), I think I'm confusing myself with a problem with a Styx SSM, someone else will probably sort you out with this, sorry.

You're not imagining it. Planes with a particular setting can flow very low, otherwise they have a probability of crashing and invariably do. The setting is only visible if you go into the Platform Editor, the setting is a 'Flag' item called 'NOE - Nap of the Earth' (I've no idea what that means). If you don't want to open the Platform editor then my only suggestion is to do a game save (ctrl S) and alter speed to vlow, if you dont get a crash within a few minutes of game time you're probably safe with that plane, if you do you'll have to restart the game and keep to low. This is fiddly but after a while you learn what can flow vlow and what can't. Hope this helps

Currently it is not possible to make a missile-like weapon "targetable" only by guns? Brad or one of the other database genie might answer you on that specifically but what I'm trying is a very small database for a particualar scenario dealing with this. (probably more work than it deserves but fun trying). So far I've tried a vlow flying missile travelling at 30 knots and a helicopter travelling vlow at 30 kts, the target is a boat armed only with a gun (to simulate say a semi auto rifle). The helo has a bomb as the weapon with a 0 nm range so the helo has to get right over the target. So far the point defence against the missile version isn't very good, against the helo it seems better. My thinking is that by fiddling the ph of the gun I can simulate a probability that the target resists or doesn't resits. As the type of target has no air radar it must rely on visual detection and that seems to be a bit of a problem with the missile (but I'm still testing). The helo version doesn't seem to work for AI, it won't attack, it might be how I have it set as I don't know much about most of the DB settings, this is my learning experience. If AI has a missile version it will fire but my defences won't as yet but I'm pretty sure that is my error somewhere, I have to have a close look at point defence weapons in established DBs. So at the moment I don't have anything that looks good for both p;ayer and AI. I'll post something (and maybe a scenario) if I get something satisfactory. Don

Your towed array will be useless above 19 knots, though it is incremental and it will perform best at creep (5 knots or slower). It may also take a minute or two for your towed array to 'straighten out' and show up on the map after course and speed changes. As for the formation patrols and the 'sprint and drift', this may be a function of the above (speed/course changes) or something deeper (a bug?) going on. Edit: Had a quick look with the Westpac scenario Backyard. The Improved Spruance class Nicholson, in the ASW ring of the Lincoln formation (AEC), does appear to be sprinting and drifting. And, the SQR-19 passive towed array is deploying and operable during the 'drift' (5 knot creep) phase. It does take a few moments for the array to become operable again after a 'sprint' (33 knots), though, as noted above. Hmm. I'm playing the GUIK scenarios. It seems like the Spruances and subs are using their towed arrays. But the OH Perry class are never using their towed arrays, in spite of being in the same group, same speeds, courses, etc. It looks to me like they have towed arrays equipped, but aren't deploying them. At least, that is how it seems to have worked in the last two scenarios of the series. Any thoughts as to why this would be? It hampers my ASW efforts to have only a third of the decent sonars in my carrier group working. Thanks, Czo Out of interest, which GIUK battleset, those before '2003 have their own database and maybe that is the culprit> Don

I have occasionally considered doing the same, but modeling the 'boarding party' as a low RCS missile, a torpedo or a gun is not ideal, and so I've refrained from going there until (maybe someday) something better comes along. It would be hard to do and you have to add a flag to some ships as uncapturable, such as carriers or other military ships that have preventative measures against boarding or are simply to massive for an effective boarding vs a smaller vessel. Is it possible that the game engine allows you to remove a vessel and replace it with a duplicate on the opposite alignment? I am not a programmer, just throwing my 2c. Yeah, I guess the boarding party weapon would need to be vulnerable to defensive action. I have recently wondered about a scenario/ database package, maybe a small fictional database with just what is necessary for the scenario (mention of Godzilla brought this to mind), maybe this is a possible. That would let us do some things a bit beyond what we can but without corrupting the standard data base. I'll give it a whirl (must have Tony's F14 with 5" cannon (or what ever it was)) Don

I'll give it a go, thanks

Not an important matter, but can the pfbuild2005.mdb be used in a sub folder and import/export the commondb.res file to that sub folder instead of the HUCE root folder. I've tried but can't get it to work, I just would prefer to leave the commondb files alone in the root folder. Don Thomas

I'd like to see boarding parties (like that of the the pirate dhow) on patrol boats like Australian Armidale class. Would be particularly nice if one day there is a 'take command' function as an option to damage. I have been trying a pirate dhow against the new suicide boat, the dhow has lost each time so far. Don

But maybe the sound of a whale is enough different from a sub that SOSUS and the like can tell the difference, anyone know for sure? I suppose yes, but only after the game engine (or the sonar or other sensor) give us the classification MISC: Whale we must take it as a biological contact. If in first instance the yet no-classified contact is descripted only as MISC (and not as SS, or other confuse name), is clearly a whale previous to the real classification, and the player has not cause for research that contact. You've obviously looked at this closer that have I. Maybe for perfection the initial report from Staff Assistant should only say "unknown contact: detected by SOSUS" (or what ever) and not give more information till better detection obtained. Your suggestion maybe is much simpler to impliment. I suppose there are a few things that fall into this catagory, my personal number one is the showing of weapon range rings for bases which include units within base formation that aren't yet detected but their range rings show up (I like to leave them off for AI for better reality)

But maybe the sound of a whale is enough different from a sub that SOSUS and the like can tell the difference, anyone know for sure?

What an awful idea, but then they are the best for this kind of thing. Maybe countries wouldn't want to pull out but dump the crippled Italy. Would it be the strong wealthy ones (that don't want their hard earned money 'wasted' on rebuilding) or would it be the poorer countries that can't afford it? Maybe poorer countries would side with Italy as they now see her as 'in their league'? Could these sort of things lead to trade embargoes, then lead to localised 'war'? Certainly a situation that might leave open a door for a radical government promising "rebuild the nation at any cost". How's this, some of the big nations call for some form of enforcing Italy to pay its own way (which we assume it can't) but the majority (mostly smaller economies) side with Italy (thinking well if it happens to us we want support) and in fact oust the big players and enforce trade restriction and naval movement in the Mediterranean ?

No better, it was a LIFT trainer

This is a little pedantic and more out of interest than anything: say you have a target comprising a single unit of three closely formed planes and you fire three missiles (eg heat seekers). Say you get three hits, now there is a likely hood (in reality) that two hits are on the same plane and so there is one survivor. This doesn't seem to be the case in Harpoon where the hits appear to be divided up evenly. Doesn't really cause a problem (in my mind) as both sides have the same situation and it isn't too far off, but an interesting case of minor deviation from reality. Don

Confirm that AAM resolution now logging in "missiles", but not quite as Tony wrote with the log entry indicating number of missile hits not number of kills. I'll refer to this in a separate "general" post. (tested in 2009.54 'playable' GE) readout is: "100798 combat3.c:1518 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 85, Roll: 14 100798 combat3.c:1518 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 85, Roll: 65 100798 combat3.c:1518 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 85, Roll: 22 100798 combat3.c:1518 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 85, Roll: 64 100798 effect4.c:5189 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-9M Sidewinder against RED 2 x A-10C Warthog, 4 hits" (double checked in 'sides' GE2011.03) Don (edit to insert readout)