donaldseadog

I think I'll give up playing my own and just read this,

I can verify that the launcher will detect a "sides" GE and allow passing of side selection as stated and the GE notes sides as "player 1" accordingly but I seem to be only able to play as blue no matter what sides I've selected, is that supposed to be the case at this instant. PS I might be going daft but I can't find the release notes string for the non experimental updates eg GE 2009.052 - introducing AAM hit resolution to logging. Don

Donald, many of the HC scenarios have been rewritten in ANW for PlayerDB. Freek Thanks for that, I have also found some in one of the standard HUD3 folders so I'm working through them. Maybe I'm just not upto ANW game play but things like a lack of push button "intercept" is wearing out my key board,... enough of that I'm getting a bit of topic, sorry. Don

Sounds like we're all getting much better hit ratios, are they looking OK from reality perspective, I've no idea what we should expect (though someone put up some info about low success for air dropped LWTs). It is much better from the game point of view, it doesn't seem like an utter waste of time and frustration builder.

I do agree, many like the micro management so the computing of more planned attacks would need to be optional or separate from the GE, I kind of do mine in my head but sometimes (eg at 1 am in the morning) the old head isn't upto it so I'm going to try the strike planner. Don

Arr yes, I think that falls into an "aggression setting". maybe three levels 'no fear' (ignore all treats) 'normal fear'(evade weapons) 'all fear' (run home first sign of threat). I'm sure I've wished for it some time ago. It would be good either in Staff Assistant prompts or as a game setting, I hadn't thought of the former. Don

Yep, a lot of Harpooners still want this, especially HC players, let me command without sinking me in the micromanagement. As a person who stepped from a Harpoon version 1.* demo to HCE I actually think that things change very substantially. I took this opportunity to revisit the condensed wish list (here at Harpgamer) and sure there are quite a few items there (and pretty desirable too), but I think the current package is doing pretty well if these are the only 'deficiencies'. For items like the calculations for getting weapons to target in a co-ordinated manner, maybe out of game utilities (eg windows 'calculator') can do the job? (PS, in the consolidated wish list, I think that the Launcher is now well past "barely alpha"). Don

Harpoon 3 as in ANW? Having just loaded "ultimate" and having played some ANW scenarios, I'm interested in playing scenarios that are (closely) duplicated in ANW and HCE, because to be honest I'm having trouble finding something in ANW to "latch on to", Im finding the GE very tedious and unfriendly but I'm sure I've just not picked up the groove and I think playing cross game scenarios will help me. So my question (if your new scenario has an "ANW conterpart") what is the Harpoon 3 scenario that has been the inspiration? Don

Let me correct my original message. The focus of the unit window jumps when changing the zoom level on the *UNIT* window. I was back in a scenario last night to verify that I'm only working from memory here but I think when you change the zoom the window will focus on the currently selected unit, if there is one selected. If no unit is selected I think the focus should stay put, ditto if it is already focused on the selected unit. Maybe look at that at your next go and see if that is what is happening. If so I think that is the designed operation mode. If it is something else some one else might know what is ahppening or maybe you can be more specific and provide a game save?

We've (myself and Tony) have already talked about that to some extent and if changes are made, it will likely be in the way that AI handles a torpedo attack rather than any fundamental, underlying changes to the way in which distances are displayed on the map. That sounds good to me as I assume it will improve the realism of the AI's side in this matter, as is the player can easily side step a futile allocation of precious torps but old 'dummy' I assume is just throwing them away. It would also take the load of those who like to concentrate more on the big picture. I can't wait (hehe I guess it won't be tomorrow though)

Do I correctly understand you, the focus point of the unit window moves sometimes when you change the zoom on the group window? I don't think I've seen that? Certainly the "U" and "C" keyboard buttons can refocus the unit window when the Group window is active and a group is selected, and teh group window focus seems to centre on a selected group if the group window zoom is altered but I don't remember other similar things occuring to me. Any hints on the sort of conditions when it happens? Any one else seen this? Curious.

Hehe, yes, the platforms are all spheres to the game sensors. Ideal if planes are finally replaced by flying saucers, eh I suppose it comes down to how often is visual detection important in the game? Certainly there are cases, especially with more and more stealthy fighters and the ability to rely on remote platforms for doing the detection for the shooter. If we were to go to including faceting of the visual target then I think we'd need to also be looking at the viewing direction from the observer (in the case of an aircraft observer) as that may be more critical. If we could take into account the visual angles then maybe we only two facet values for the target and they are balanced taking into account its direction of flight relative to the observer... ( I think it is my turn to claim a somewhat less than clear explanation )

Yes, that's my principal concern in making the 'fudge' just big enough to be workable in most circumstances. I don't mind making the player work a bit harder to make sure he has a solid contact and drops in close. Two other points: 1. I am not concerned about the ASW standoff weapons; they already have an uncanny ability to drop their payload very close to the target. 2. Keep in mind that since HCE does not model acoustic decoys or countermeasures, I also don't mind making submarines a difficult target. The 'extra fudge' in hcdb-110401 certainly seems to have greatly increased the frequency of getting and maintaining acquisition in all of the torpedos I previouls testedeg stingrays now getting about 1 in four hit and 3 in four maintaining acquistition (Thanks to peoples input I'm gauging a maintained acquistion as the time to target going down to 0:00 and the torpedo diving for the target). I have also looked at the granuality, I'll call a visual unit the smallest movement you can get on the screen, (I was using full magnification in the unit window with the unit window about 40% of the total Window's window). Using the torpedoe's speed and time to target, as well as the units' co-ordinates (given down the bottom of the unit window when you select units) it appears that a torpedo approaching its target jumps in one visual unit from being separate to being visually right over the target somewhere between 0.75 and 1.25 NM. That is even if you micro manage your helo to visually be right over the sub it might be as much as 1.25 mile off target. With previous settings this is around the range that people have been reporting as critical. While so far I think Brads latest fudge is looking good it seems to me that we couldn't have previously relied upon micro management because we just didn't have a fine enough visual scale. Also if you leave the helo under AI control it often wants to drop on an uncertain fix and will drop (it appears) any where out to about the max range of the torpedo in question, so leaving it to the AI is near hopeless. Therefore it seems to me that if a long term solution was wanted without the fudge it would require either a much more rigorous AI routine and/or an ability to get visual granuality down to about .25 nm. Intereted to see how others are finding the last fudge and from the quoted observations I guess we need to look at other torpedo activities to make sure it isn't too fudged.

My understanding is that the GE sees a much better resolution than the screen gives. I have usually dropped torpedoes from A/c manually as I thought I could do a better job but is this my problem because although (as others have said) you can have the image of your helo right over the sub, drop a torp and it is 2 mile from the target.... does this happen if the AI is allowed to manage the drop?? and so does it get better results? When torps are dropped from fixed wings they have a 'shute don't they so as to hit the water at a reduced speed. How about from helos, do they normally drop from a hover or with say a 40 kt forward speed facing the target. Do the these torps have an initial programed course/ depth or do they need to get acquisition, ie what is their 'search' pattern between drop and acquisition? How well is the GE simulating this bit between drop and acquisition? This is what I'm starting to wonder,

In some scenarios there are a lot of groups in action. I guess its horses for courses but the best compromise for me is to have both unit and group windows fully visible and about the same size (maybe the group is a bit bigger usually). Both are zoomed in sufficiently to see the detail and then to move the window quickly about the total area of interest I use the little strategic map, left click positions the group window, right click positiones the unit window. You just to need to have in the back of your mind where the various action is taking place.

I think I follow, but I'm not convinced it is always correct. Consider: two planes about the same size are at a bit less than visual limit, the plane's respective heading are about 90 deg apart with one plane approachinging the other and facing directly at it and the second plane heading 'across' the front of the first, ie an ideal situation for the first plane to cruise in behind the second on its tail and shoot. The approaching plane is seeing the second plane side on and its right in front, but for the second plane they are looking at the first front on and having to look right abeam (with maybe a wing in the line of site). The approaching plane is (in reality) in a very advantageous position.

I also did some more tests, predominantly from helo air drops and with rather poor results. Question: I am now not sure I'm correctly judging getting acquisition, is it indicated by the unit report box showing "x miles to target, xx;xxmins to targe"t? I dropped NST-58, Stingray Mod 0, A244s, Mk46 mod2 and mod5 and L5 mod4 (Not sure I have the last written correctly), I also did sub launched Mk48mod5 ADCAP. My targets were Collins class subs generally doing 21kts deep (evading torps). The ADCAPs had a near perfect hit rate, except in one case when they fired to early and the ships out ran them. Of the others, generally helo launched in pairs as close to the target as I could manage, generally showing helo and sub coinciding but the torpedoes apparently hitting the water within 2 nm (from the unit report box) I only got kills from stingray, Mk46 mod 2 & mod5 and about 15% - 20% hit rate, a couple of nights back I got good results doing much the same (helo drops) with single MU-90 impact. One thing I noticed was that some of the torps doing a long back and forth (hunting) at 0 nm, 0 mins to target, it seemed to be mostly the Mk 46 doing this, and it generally resulted in a 'near miss' bringing up the little video showing the torpedo cruise past. Once some one clarifies for me the method of determining when acquisition occurs I'll go over it all again. Oh yes, regarding warhorse's comment on getting the helos in close, while I tried to do this the torpedo often hit the water still 2 mile out as reported in the unit report window even though at full resolution (and a fairly large unit window) the helo was hovering on top of the target with a solid fix. Don

Nice summary, Brad has pointed out that the database doesn't distinguish tanker characteristics (although there is the actual range value that differs for each tanker class) so there isn't much room to fine tune things like delivery period but for harpooon purposes I'd think the current is quite good enough. There do appear some inconsistencies though, I say appear as I haven't bothered to look at them empirically: When you put a group together for a flight plan that requires tankers then the total 'range' value of the tankers seems to have to be equal to or greater than the total range deficiency of the non tanker units, implying that the range vale for each tanker is taken as a kind of value for the fuel available. However I remember being told, or having read somewhere that the available fuel is twice the range of the tanker and that does seem to correspond to what I see 'in the air'. Also the time at which refuel automatically takes place, I'm sure it used to be at about 25% remaining fuel of the 'thirstiest' unit but now it seems to occur seudo random (ie I don't know the criteria). My best guess is that it is the earlier of: 25% remaining fuel; ability to take all the tanker fuel on offer( that would be very good criteria). There were changes to code for IFR about two years ago to solve tankers crashing in long ferry trips and poor distribution to multi unit groups. Anyway it might be good to work out rules when auto IFR commences and how much fuel a tanker provides. Using the tanker logging it looks like it is the tanker range (also at group assembly for launch) but I'm certain I've seen groups get more than that. Logging doesn't seem to help regarding calculating when to commence auto IFR.

What sort of implications would this condition produce? For instance, would the range circle now be bogus - or, if not, then which unit would it apply to: the one that got fuel or the others? Also, how would it affect the actual range of the overall group? Would some of the members of the group eventually crash, while leaving the re-fueled member still flying (given they don't reach base before that, of course)? I think we might be confusing terminology. I use the term unit as in the harpoon sense, a group is made up of at least one unit, each unit (in the case of aircraft) is made up of at least one individual of same type/loadout - you see units in the unit window, you get information on them in the unit report table, etc. I'm not talking individual planes, for this sort of thing harpoon seems to only work with the unit, not individual aircraft. In refuelling each unit is refuelled as a single entiity and it occurs instantly, if there are two units there is a time gap (simulating the real time to refuel aircraft) between the refuelling commencement times of the respective units, in this gap you can split off the tanker and the later units don't get fuel, (this is what I'm saying) as would be the case in reality. Don

Interesting. Effectively, considering the aircraft to be rectangle-shaped, this is the same as Y = (side area) x (wing area) Note that wing area has units of square meters, not meters. Instead of wing area, you should probably use top area, which is not exactly the same. But mainly, I think you should not be multiplying these two areas, but rather averaging them. This would be important for planes that are significantly larger in one view than the other. Or maybe it would have no practical effect at all. Clearly you're right, in my original formula: - The area size is in square meters. - The values lenght+height+wing area are ADDED, not multiplied. For me is clear issue ... the problem was to explain it (for sake of that, I've send the examples...) It seems to me that simulating visual detection is pretty hard as there are so many factors and some aren't modelled (eg sound). Things like detecting a glider head on is difficult, but from above or below it is much easier. Also detecting a plane that is right behind the searcher as against one right in front, I'm sure there will be some things used in determining detection that are found to work but the explanation is not clear. Don

Okay, acquisition range is 2,500 yd (1.2 nm) on the Mk 46 Mod 5, and 3,000 yd (1.48 nm) for the Stingray Mod 0. I am hesitant to boost (fudge) it much more than I have, but this remains an option. Sounds like no CZ detect for him. His direct path passive sonar range is 1.7 nm. (The 5 minute sonar checks are in play too). OT: I am not terribly happy with some elements of the sonar model, but that's a topic for another beta forum thread. I seem to have had good results with Mark 48 Mod5 ADCAPs and MU-90 impact, I'm looking at some others and will get back. Don

Brings back old happy memories, I actually love the cat and mouse scenarios, played this twice this morning already. Maybe for newer players would be good to have an initial course and speed for the blue surface group (like the original), we can always override it if we think we know better , I smile as I forgot about the time limit and snuck of too cautiously on my first run and run out of time. I'll let you know if I have any suggestions re the subs. Thanks,

I wouldn't be concerned, it takes a long time to get through all the in built scenarios of HCE, you can click and play for years I'd reckon before you got tired of it. Don't forget the instant action button, really cuts down on the button pushiing , I used it for ages.

I didn't take it that way at all, but I am interested in making sure that everyone who reads the thread (and doesn't necessarily join in) can gather something from the discussion. So that means pointing to the sources available. I have recently gotten back to looking up the manual (after a game) in order to check something that caught me a bit by surprise. It isn't always in enough detail for some questions, but it does have the basics of just about every aspect. I've sometimes asked questions in these forums, only to think later of the manual and find the answer there (then feel like a goose ) And as Brad says, a look over the topics in tools/mods/docs can uncover good info.

Well, don't get confused. The refueling process took about a minute. The 8.5 minutes was the interval between the receipt of the 'No Refuel' info and the prompt to split off the tanker. Computerised simulations don't necessarily follow real life exactly, but the over all effect is (hopefully) sufficiently close for the purpose. This simulation doesn't actually refuel each aircraft one at a time, it refuels one unit at a time. All planes in the unit are refuelled as soon as the tanker commences refuelling that unit. Now in real life it takes a lot longer than 0 secs to refuel a number of planes so what the simulation does is introduce a delay based on the number of planes being fuelled and the number of tankers. At the end of the delay it asks to split the tankers, or (if there are more units and fuel left) it goes on to commence fuelling the next unit which again is refuelled instantly but the computer calculates another delay....., until either the tanker is dry or all the units are refuelled, this is the end of the IFR simulation and I think a pretty good reflection on the general real life situation. Try a IFR with a group including two receiving units and you'll see this more clearly. So for a group with a single unit receiving fuel you can what I call cheat and split the tanker as soon as you have got the jump in bingo fuel, the increase in range ring or the change of "with refuel" to "no refuel", but to do so is cheating the simulation. If you try this with a multi receiving unit group you'll leave only the first unit with new fuel, the remaining units as they were and an 'empty' tanker cruising home of no further use. If you want to play with IFR with out other distractions I recently put up an IFR exercise scenario in NACV section of scenario downloads. In my simple test (with I think 12 aqnd 24 planes) I got results of 3 minutes per plane per tanker, Brad got 2.125 mins per plane for four planes an one tanker. Close enough in my book to say it's consistent and a smaller unit is slightly quicker per plane, any one want to test 1,2,3,4,...plane units to get the exact maths involved??