donaldseadog

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??

When I think about this I assume that there is a typical periodic test (1 per second, 1 per minute, what ever) with a probability of detection. On that basis I'd think that a 1 nm range (and possibly need to fiddle of the probability) so that a fast incoming fixed wing has little chance of detection (as should be the case) but a slower chopper or sluggish fixed wing is likely to get picked up overhead. It's in view of no sound model that I think some adjustment would be good so that slower air craft will be likely to be seen at soome stage. With vlow attacking aircraft I'd expect you hear first then that tells you where to look, so to 'cheat' on this I think a slightly more lenient visual detection would be an improvement. Which needs least work, revising code or going through all the databases? Probably wouldn't need both. Don

I read the air to air detection for vsmall aircraft being 0 nm as meaning that at 0 nm range detection is possible, but when I try this it seems that no visual detection occurs, ie vsmall sized aircraft are invisible. I've attached a zipped save where 6 Tiger ARH helicopters are hovering over Amberley air base which in turn has a long range patroling MRH-90 helo also hovering directly above. All show up as at 0nm distance apart. no matter how long this is allowed neither the bse nor the HRH-90 make a visual on the 6 Tigers. There is also a Red MRH-90 hovering at 0nm distance from a loitering starlifter, AMberley has ESM on the MRN-90 but no visual is ever made. It seems to me that there is some problem with the 0 nm range. Even if the helos are hard to spot in this situation they would be heard, and then spotted, surely? Also if we do something simiilar with a stealth jet flying overhead vlow, Iaccept it probably won't be seen approaching but it will be heard as it overpasses, and a visual for a short time on its departure, surely? Amberley radar is off, 'see all' mode has been utilised, I used GE 2009.53, HCDB-110225, westpac BS. Don a2a_vis.zip

I don't believe tankers don't split after completing normal IFR, I've tested a lot of IFR flights and have not seen it. Ofcourse normal IFR might not complete in particular cases, each case has its own reason. If other occasions occur then get back to us with the specifics, it is useless just talking in generalities when there is no known problem. Don

Very good point.

I've always put mine in the HCE folder and I've never had a problem. Buddha If you want a bit of an idea about the scenario file extensions, and what they mean, see FAQ, file names Don

Anyone know where the rules came from originally? From my house (on a small ridge at the edge of a shallow valley full of farm land) I can see a gyrocopter that often flies overhead from between about 1 and 2 mile away. I usually hear it a bit before I can see it and it comes form a near neighbour about 2 mile away but I see it near the edge of our property about 1 mile away. Also I can see small fixed wing planes (and before when they used helicopters) that inspect a power grid line that runs along the valley opposite me about 2 mile away but sometimes loose sight when it nears the ridge at the other end about 4 mile away. These are all very low flying silhouetted against hills. I think this doesn't tie in very well with the 0 nm visibility of vsmall aircraft. The trouble I keep thinking of though is how to compare say a single seat fighter flying very low minutes away from weapon release and a reconnaissance plane cruising, their respective abilities to ID visually must be incredibly different. Don Thomas

A technique I've only recently picked up for the situation when a lot is happening quickly is this: You get an assistants message with various information and execution options, remember while it is showing the game is paused. You make your decision on what to do (and think about what is likely to happen next). If your decision is to give orders to a group that is currently selected, or you can select that group from the message window then press and hold the appropriate keyboard 'F' key (eg F1 attack, F3 course edit) while you mouse click the 'select', 'continue' or '1:1' option in the staff message window. Keep the key board button down until you see that you are in the appropriate box for your desired orders. otherwise press and hold the ctrl alt P key combination (for 0 time compress) while mouse clicking the 'continue' etc. In 0 compression you can select your groups one by one and issue their orders, then go back to normal time (or what ever). Now if in that very second many things are happening you will have to go through all the staff messages before you get to your appropriate box to do what ever, but that is reality, you can't split a second and make time stand still while you issue orders, but this technique does let you split two seconds and issue as many orders as you like, one for the supreme commander and one for the pilot officer in his Hornet etc, or what ever.

If you don't mind cheating then, for a group with only one receiving unit (of any number of planes) you can split off the tanker(s) manually (F8) as soon as you see the bingo number jump or the range ring expand. This is cheating as Harpoon, unlike most games, is a realistic simulation and in reality refuelling takes time. The way to tell (properly simulated finish to IFR) is that the 'split' request occurs. To my knowledge the only game glitch here is that the landing options sometimes omit the correct base/carrier in which case 'cancel' the request and your tankers should head back to their correct home plate. I think if you sit back and look at all the facts that the various people have presented to you in this string you must agree that what happened was correct game function, the error was from your inexperience. From my own memory inexperience is almost always the cause of my grief, but it happens less now than it used to (still happens though, because there is much to learn, and that is where I get my Harpoon fun) Don

Out of interest I did three quick refuelling tests: 1/ 24 hornets and one KA-6 Intruder, 2/ 12 hornets and one intruder 3/ 12 hornets and two intruder. the refuel cycle times (from 'xx00 starting to refuel xx01' to 'refuel complete, split group') were respectively: 72 mins, 37 mins, 18 mins. so nearly an hour and a quarter for the situation of refuelling 24 hornets from one intruder. In Joes cited situation the hornets were probably down to about 25% fuel at the start of the refuel (I seem to remember that is the trigger for auto refuel), so I guess with a surface attack loadout about 250 nm and I think each hornet would only get about 150 nm range extension from the refuel, so about 400 nm, with the low cruise speed of the intruder (350 kts?) you run dry before the cycle finishes. In my test my hornets had intercept load outs so just got to the end of the 72 min IFR with some fuel remaining. So I think that is what happened. Don Thomas

Have I missed something, do we have the game rules for visual detection of ships (Brad's post #4 is only air to air isn't it?)? RE visual of ships from the air, it seems that in the game tests I did (flying low and medium with all sized ships) I was getting consistent visuals at a factor of 5 to 10 times less than indicated in the manual. These were in daylight fine weather. I guess we also need to know how the probabilities are worked out? I'll try some air to air runs to. Don

Not so far as I know, Tankers should break off after refuel. However the refuelling process can take many minutes, it certainly isn't over as soon as the recipients have their fuel. If there are more than one unit being refilled or a large number of planes IFR can take more than ten minutes from memory. Refuelling 24 hornets from one KA-6 is unknown territory to me so maybe it does cause some problem. I'm not sure what your flight plan was, were you conducting a strike (you mention completing an attack) or were you ferrying (you mention separation distance from two carrier groups). Normally you can't 'launch' unless you have enough fuel for the intended flight plan so I don't see how it could have been an attack. I'd agree with others comments about mixed groups, you need to know what you're doing to be certain of it working. One option is to launch with the tanker and soon after they are formed up and cruising, do a forced refuel (alt R). Maybe you are only 100mile out but you've topped up the fuel used for launching (and the first launched loitering while waiting for the last). The tanker probably has time to get home and refuel to meet the survivors on the way home for a further top up if needed. Especially if you have a small amount of tanker fuel per 'plane this is more helpful than letting the normal flight take place. Another thing to watch here is if you are landing a very big group very low on fuel some of them might run dry while circling for their turn in landing. In the past I think this caused problems with ghost groups. In fairness to the GE, a flight comprising 24 hornets and one KA-6 is a bit out of the norm I'd suggest. Don Thomas

From your calculations and comments I'm thinking hard about my (30 year old) memories. I'm thinking in good conditions line of sight is the limiting factor while in poor weather actual visibility is the limiting factor. At night there is a reduction but the good/poor weather is more important. In good conditions visual range of a ship (from ship or aircraft) depends on mast height of observed ship and 'eye' of observer (altitude of pilot, deck height (ship size) of sailor. I think this is close to what is happening in Harpoon but the distances seem very short of your calculations which seem spot on, what are others finding? In poor weather I think the size of the target becomes more important than line of sight distance. For testing I'm having trouble getting any bad weather, I have realistic weather box selected but the clouds don't come. Is weather location dependant at all or something else? Don

I can see what you mean, nearly 300 mile off station. Its running full speed (17 kts) so would have taken quite some time to et there if it started off correctly in formation. In the formation editor things look OK except that the sub isn't there and in the unit window it isn't even heading toward its patrol point. If you reassign patrol sector (in formation editor) it turns and heads correctly. I've never seen this before and can't fathom it, interested to see what gets turned up. Don

I have looked at this very crudely. It's a matter of the 2-D geometry of a tangent to a very large circle. It seems to be the case that the range is not very sensitive to the size of the smaller object. Probably I should work it out carefully and post the results. I suppose one thing is how realistic we need to be with visual, take this example; In real life observing from the bridge of a 20,000 ton oiler such as the old HMAS supply, a super tanker side on is visible in good conditions from very much further than from right front on (or stern on). From the side view such a very large ship is quite more visible than say a FFL, but viewed right front on, or stern on, the difference is no where near as much. As you say it is the tangent or angular size of the target. There are many areas where visual detection is crucial, so I'd think that we need to have it working well. Don

This is quite interesting. I've attached a scenario I am using to look at detecting ships from planes (westpac, HCDB110225). Also is a txt file that is data stolen from the manual regarding Maximum line of sight. So far things seem to tie in re manual data, vis range from the game weather report (which takes time of day etc into account). What really surprises me is the small difference that the size of the 'target' makes. Ships range from small (lifeboat) to very large (supertanker) but in good conditions at low and medium altitudes all sightings are generally being made in the range 7 - 10 nm. Once conditions deteriorate, (eg night time) then the biggest difference seems to be the frequency of missing the smaller targets. I'll try to put together a number of runs in different conditions (funny, but the weather seems to be always fine) and post up something more informative. I'm interested in what others find and think, but I'm wondering if periscopes and life boats are to easy to see and supertankers a bit too difficult?? I'm assuming others are are looking at air to air first as Brad posted some stuff on that (which is why I thought I'd look at air to ship). Don SHPVIS.zip

I think the time line databases are correct, I think what happened when the instant action button was selected was that all your selections made in launcher were ignored and thus it looked in an incorrect database. Still you now have an upto date version of all those databases and it may well be that some of the scenarios need that so no loss. Hope you got into korea-51 and had fun with it. Harpoon diesn't handle some aspects of gunnery so well as might be hoped for by some people but I still have fun with it and hope you too. Don Thomas

But we must remember the mast height matters in relation to the active/visually searching unit, at more mast height, more visual detection range. with range values similar to that in the paper rules. Please verify for us dummies, for ship to ship visual ID, the mast height of the ship being searched for doesn't matter but the mast height of the ship doing the searching does. Also does the mast height of the searching ship help to see low altitude aircraft, I looked at this in the manual but wasn't clear to me some of the detail. Don