donaldseadog
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by donaldseadog
-
-
- Chg:0000 GE Tanker prompted to land at wrong carrier, proceeds to land
at any old carrier it wants to. Tanker now listens and
follows orders. (thanks Maromak)
See http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2674
- Chg:B142 GE Work around inability to re-target within existing target
group when remaining weapons range <= 3nm and the target
is not an aircraft. (thanks Joe K)
These two still need verification. Note the second has a related issue report that will need updating. Thank you
Chg 0000 GE tanker landing problem: confirm aero tankers land on carriers (choice of two) according to player direction (tested OK GE version 2010.015)
Chg B142 GE no retarget of multi unit group with weapons <= 3nm. Confirm situation now working, test GE 2010.015 GP loadout hornet correctly attacks four unit mobile group, attacking each unit in turn till group kill or low ammo.
Don Thomas
-
Okay, made some progress on this tonight. So far I can't easily make the heightmap (NewBSElev.bmp) editable but I can make the pretty graphic (NewBSMap.bmp) editable. Is that good enough (i.e. you wouldn't be able to change coastlines but you could draw lines, add text, and such, to the textured map)?
For fine tuning of coastal regions, adding panama and suez Channal, adding rivers etc, editing the NesBSElev will be required at some point.
And if i understand Donlad correctly, he wants to add a (big) harbour bassin/dock etc...
editable texture map would be nice as could add country boundaries and add geographical/ political names etc, but as I understand it ships will run aground or float according to the heightmap so Divefreak is spot on as to my thinking. I agree with him that this is something we will be wanting in the future, at some time. How about we stick to the editing of texture map for now, when you have that usable (can be messy for now) some of us can fiddle with that and see if we can make some use, and then we can get back to the heightmap when other things are sorted out?
Don
-
Bump, we still need verification that the updated scenarios and orders made it into EC2003. See the related issue reports for the changes that will tip you off to the correct ones being in the 2009.042+ battlesets.
So I'm assuming that the correction is made in the replacement battleset files that came with 2009.42 release?
I have checked 2003 Medc scenario 8 (battleset resident) against the 'test' "straits.zip" found in the posts. The vic conditions check out identical. I assume this verifies that scenario. I'll keep going with the other two.
Don.
Right on in strategy, thank you for taking a look. I'm also not trying to be a pain, it just generally isn't good practive for the person who inserted the scenario to check for it.
I think most of us assume if you ask for something there's good reason.
Have now checked with same methodology GIUK 1 and 2 (EC2003) against the ones supplied in the forum string and they are identical.
So EC2003 GIUK scenarios 1,2 and MEDC scenario 8 confirmed updated.
Don
-
Bump, we still need verification that the updated scenarios and orders made it into EC2003. See the related issue reports for the changes that will tip you off to the correct ones being in the 2009.042+ battlesets.
So I'm assuming that the correction is made in the replacement battleset files that came with 2009.42 release?
I have checked 2003 Medc scenario 8 (battleset resident) against the 'test' "straits.zip" found in the posts. The vic conditions check out identical. I assume this verifies that scenario. I'll keep going with the other two.
Don.
-
-
My understanding that we're leaving the code as is; essentially requiring MinVic be achieved before TotalVic can be awarded?
I would vote 'yes' at this point in development.
I vote yes too.
It does make sense that you must obtain your minimum victory, that should be the main focus of the scenario. Total I guess is icing for doing a good job.
I guess we learn these things by trial and error as we go along
Don
-
HCE - 2010.015 - 2010/12/05
===========================
- Chg:0000 GE ESM works again (thanks Don Thomas) as do the other detection
types.
- Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should show the correct size now.
- Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should highlight the selected sectors again.
(thanks Don Thomas)
I've attached my scenarios that I used to test the Sensor types. Play all as Blue, targets to the East. HCDB-101022 was used.
VISUAL.SCM
Visual - Fly A-4 straight East, expect visual detect at 2nm from Red cargo ship
IR - Fly F-35 straight East, expect IR detect > 2nm from Red cargo ship
Radar - Turn on F-35 Radar and fly East, detect...
ESM - Since this build is broken you can turn the Red sensors on by toggling on Show-All, turn on sensor, toggle off Show-All then launch F-35, insta-ESM detect.
SONAR.SCM
CZ - Convergence Zone detect - Run Seawolf towards LNG carrier, I ran at 5kts Intermed or Deep and got a 3rd CZ detect one time out of three tries, that's 97-107nm from the Seawolf. Oh, I used the trick to control Red and set it to Flank speed.
Passive - Set depth to Shallow and intercept the ship at Creep (19kts in Seawolf's case). You should get a Passive detect plenty far out.
Active - I couldn't get an Active detect before Passive by using Seawolf, you'd have to turn on sonar logging. One can always go back to Rene's test scen in the original issue report.
SONBUOY.SCM
Use SBs to detect the Red Noisemaker. It is loud so you shouldn't have too much trouble.
The one detection type I didn't test was MAD; the code looks consistent like it will work but I didn't follow-thru with a test.
Confirm formation editor now (2010.015) showing yellowed sectors, marking multiple sectors and vessels responding to sector changes.
Confirm that sizing of formation pattern appears uniform and proportional to radial sizing (not exactlly correct size but I think it was always a bit out).
BUT I've had no luck with MAD, I used a modification of Tonys test "sonbouy" including three USSR Yankee s in a close pattern and using both Viking and SV-22 using see-all mode to plot a close patrol pattern right over head and at various altitudes, maybe some one else will have better luck (I'll try a new test with P-3s or similar).
Confirm visual by aircraft and surface vessel, (Tony's test "visual.scm")
Confirm sonabouy (Tony's sonbuoy.scm)
confirm passive at 19knot creep at about 38 nm (sonar.scm)
confirm active sonar (divefreeks original test)
NOT tested CZ nor ESM nor radar
Don
(edit don)
Re the MAD, I ran my test in 2010.006 and 2010.015 with MAD ok in the earlier but no joy in the later, so I assume MAD is broken.
-
Heres a query then, my current netbook has a bog standard 1.6Ghz Atom CPU and the one I'm looking to buy has a 1.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo Chip, for most things this will be night and day compared to the old Atom but if Harpoon doesn't use two cores surely that means I would be taking a performance hit from 1.6Ghz on the 1 core CPU to 1.4Ghz on one core of the dual core cpu??
I'll make a GUESS here, I think that most poor performance in modern computers comes down to what I'll call house keeping, all those things that the operating system and a lot of pesky programs do even when the program isn't running, you know just peaking at what is happening in case something comes up that it can poke its nose into. So I think if the dual processor has any good intelligence built into its controls then you will still see an improvement because the house keeping will be out of the hair of harpoon.
BUT definitely wait till you hear from someone who knows.
Don Thomas
-
Two matters, I've attached respective files both with game saves from 2010.14 game version, also their parent scenario. Use HCDB 101022 and westpac BS:
Game save "esm-14" has an FA-18 right near a sam, about to get visual. If you play the same parent scenario in the previous version ESM detection has already occurred.
Game save "flee-14" is a little later, the FA-18 has been split from the base out of formation but will not follow its course, it 'flees' the SAM now not detected.
Note game saves still seem to work only in the same game version so to see the behaviour in the previous game version you need the actual scenario supplied.
Don
I got a good chuckle from your test scen when I noticed that SAM unit doesn't have the ESM flag, HQ-61A Bty
There was still a problem but I think I'll swap out that SAM for one with ESM.
Providing a good chuckle is a very valuable service, for you free of charge though
Don
Yeah just bad luck, I'd seen no ESM detection all over a reasonable sized scenario then just picked that SAM (without thinking) for a simple demo test.
-
I would change the future name Prince of Wales for Ark Royal. Prince of Wales sound some like hoodoo for me
Out of interest anyone know how old is the oldest ship's name in current use? I seem to remember some really old names (reading 'semi-fictional' Hornblower series) that regularly turn up.
...and yeh the Prince of Wales does seem a little hoodoo, but for what reason?
I guess they don't use Hood anymore, why Prince of Wales?
Don Thomas
-
8. Automatic evasive maneuvers by pilots when engaged by SAMs or air to air missiles
I would be careful about this point. In an old version of HII a red a/c had only to launch a missile and the blue a/c turned back home even the blue a/c is not in range of the red missile. Maybe as an option by the game start, or as individual option for a/c yes, but please not for all scenarios and all players.
If a user could program the behavior individual via AI and Stadd logic, then yes.
Agreed, IIRC a previous version of HCE had a similar issue, enemy air would reverse course and go afterburner if it detected a missile launch, with the end result that enemy air was going round and round until running out of fuel
I have in the back of my mind that AI planes were harder to kill in much older games. Currently a lot are wasted by lack of caution, anything to even the fights would be good I think. As for evasion/ chaff/ flare etc, database people could advice weather the hit probabilities and the like already take these things into account? I don't know of anything that says they do but eg is a sidewinder just as likely to hit an A330 as a F-22 and does aircraft speed (launch and target) make any difference??
Anyone with older games (or Harpoon Ultimate) could have fun comparing a similar small scenario in a few different game versions. (hmmm, I might try it myself)
Don Thomas
-
105. Air attack on Trivandrum. Four Jaguars downed on my way.
.....................
Why that? Mabe because I did not manage to destroy Bombay; especially its port
where neutral shipping was kept hostage. Not sure, though.
Anyawy - a wonderful scenario by donaldseadog!
Job well done, promotion on way
re victory conditions, you might have had one of the earlier versions where I had dicky victory conditions but for victory you do need to destroy some of the ADmobiles but I'd say you must have done that, the pivotal condition though is getting (I think an amphibious) the assault group into one of the ports (on station)
You can get it at either Indian port/ airfield though I'd like people to go for the one with the "captured" neutral ships.
I might check my 'orders' to see if this is clear and I'll see if I still have my game saves where I got a victory (after cheating, it is too long game to test without cheating
)Don
-
Let me look tonight but I think I can pretty easily make a special version of the BS Builder that will pause between cutting the small map image from the large image and crunching it into the battleset file. I don't know if you'll be able to get the results you want but at least you'll be able to try.
Don't bother about it tonight, you might have a few other things on the stove. I'll pester you again in a while and in the meantime I'll have a fiddle with stuff (eg I think I need to sort out 16 bit per channel grey scale TIF files
)Don
-
I've had an idea for a while about doing small battleset maps for specific scenarios, eg WWII mini sub attack Sydney Harbour, Air attack Pearl Harbour, and the like.
To do so I need to fine tune the actual battleset map so as to have the needed detail. I've seen on a document mention of editing individual bitmaps but no info on how it is done and reloaded into the battleset.
Can anyone help me? I've found some bitmaps in the BSbuilder folder but my "GIMP" editor doesn't seem to like the 16 bit per channel, do I need another graphic editor?
Don Thomas
the main Problem is not the graphical map but the map with the heights/depths
Is that in the battleset sub directory, NewBSElev.TIF?
This looks like what would go into the battleset files and is the same as the map from my last created battleset?
Don
-
Can you provide more information on what you intend? The BS Builder can't use a textured map graphic any larger than what it already has so I expect you cannot get the detail you desire within the current structure. I'm just wondering if you are barking up a tree that has no fruit.
(Wouldn't be the first time I'd clambered up to find no fruit.
)I don't think I need a larger map. What I would have is a very much zoomed in map say 100nm square. But with the map generated by the BSbuilder this obviously has only the detail from the large world view. I want to be able to 'tidy up' coast outlines and put in harbours, large rivers perhaps,
I have played with a map in BSBuilder/battleset/Newbselev.tif (this looks like the map we play on) and gotten what I want (but in 8 bit per channel, TeTeT - I'll check my Gimp version and update if needed). So I want to know if I can modify this (or some other 'map' and then remake the battleset files (using one of the 'tools'?)?
Is my tree fruitless
, or do I just need a few bees to pollinate it Don
-
I've had an idea for a while about doing small battleset maps for specific scenarios, eg WWII mini sub attack Sydney Harbour, Air attack Pearl Harbour, and the like.
To do so I need to fine tune the actual battleset map so as to have the needed detail. I've seen on a document mention of editing individual bitmaps but no info on how it is done and reloaded into the battleset.
Can anyone help me? I've found some bitmaps in the BSbuilder folder but my "GIMP" editor doesn't seem to like the 16 bit per channel, do I need another graphic editor?
Don Thomas
-
continued..
15. An "evasive" feature available to the AI (switched by the scenario writer) that can be applied to groups so eg surface groups don't go running aground chasing enemy and poorly armed groups don't attempt Kamikaze runs.
16. Download files in scenario section showing the respective database in the browsing section so as to easily find eg HCWW database scenarios.
17. A switch to send aircraft back to base after an initial weapon launch, the switch available to player at launch of attack and to AI via the scenario editor at aircraft launch.
18. Stealth generic bases, ie small bases that aren't automatically known to the player (or AI) at game start. A bit like a FARP but able to handle small planes or maybe just STOL planes.
19. Ability for in air refuelable planes to "land" on an in flight tanker including one in formation about a base.
20. Planes able to go in formation patrol about settable 'points'. Useful for any surveillance patrol especially ASW.
NEW
21. Within (the new 32 bit) scenario editor, an ability to ferry aircraft via a way point. Also an ability to ferry from a neutral base to either a red or blue base. The aircraft then becoming 'property' of that side. Thus a neutral country could supply aircraft to one side in their support while still claiming neutrality. A similar thing with neutral ships/ subs with an ability to 'join' a red or blue base at the end of a cruise.
Don Thomas
22. completely ditch Scenario editor and have the GE be able to save scenarios (with probability of unit/group occurrence etc ) so can write a scenario that has planes in the air, complex course for patrol planes etc. (Now there's a BIG wish
)23.When you change battleset from within the game (eg ctrl N, file/newgame) you can go to other folders to select the battleset file but need a database (RSR and RES files) in that folder. I wish that a shortcut to the database files was sufficient.
Don
-
HCE - 2010.014 - 2010/11/30
===========================
+ Chg:0000 GE Player can now click groups on the map to select a target. This
was broken with the new group windows. So when you intend to
launch TLAM and you click "Attack", in the recent builds you had
to select the target group in the list of groups rather than
clicking the target group on the map. Now you can click on the
map again.
+ Chg:0000 GE Version/Build added to header line of ge.log and MessageLog.txt
+ Chg:0000 GE Launch animations should only show for detected and own units.
This was broken with the new group windows where you would see
launch animations for ships not detected by the active group
window's side.
+ Chg:B176 GE A platform with sonar of type active only could not detect
anything. This has been fixed but the fix impacts all types
of detections so thorough testing would be good. This is a
larger problem as well affecting all detections. The code
uses unit->emit (unit has this sensor type) and unit->detect
(unit can be detected by this sensor type) inconsistently.
(thanks Rene, JMS)
http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=176
That last one is a biggie. A wonder the game worked right at all! Would be good to make sure passive sonar, radar, ESM, visual detections still work.
Apart from lack of ESM only big thing I currently see now is when setting formations of surface groups, I can't 'click' a sector to place the units and can't 'shift click' to select multiple sectors.
Still have to play with cancelled A2G attacks, have had a few crashes there abouts.
Don
-
Hi Don,Very sorry to all those who downloaded my Australia battleset file and found it was broken. A small clerical error (honestly) embedded the wrong database).
I've uploaded what should be right (I thought the original was right so I still have fingers crossed) and I hope a few of you have fun with it.
ps Long live the F-111!!
Get it from the downloads - battlesets: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=430
Don
Never mind, these things happen. In my two decades of pooning and scenario writing, I did worse sometimes
Regards,
Ralf
P.S. I´m an Vark fan, too!
I just hope it is actually fixed (I downloaded my upload and unzipped it into a fresh folder and it worked so I guess its fixed
maybe?)The first time I saw an F-111 was from the deck of a destroyer, the bird did a dummy bombing run over us, and they do it very low and loud, I thought to my self "they don't need a bomb, they scare you to death on the way in and if you survive that you deaf for life anyway so next time you don't know they're coming"
Don
-
File Name: weaver
File Submitter: TeTeT
File Submitted: 26 Nov 2010
File Category: Custom
.....................................
The North Vietnamese side has an integrated air defense system composed of SAMs, AAA and MiGs available. Often the North Vietnamese fighters will be able to sneak up to US aircraft and jump them.
AAR spoiler Alert.
My carrier group is dead in the water 225 nm SE of North Vietnam port and two air bases. I set off at a creep along my tight patrol course.
I have on deck ready to fly Intercept, SEAD, recon and precision bombing loadouts, so lets look around with a vigilante RA-5c (should be able to get out quick if it gets hot. I send out some escorted SEAD units too so if the coast is clear I can start to wipe up the radar and SAM units.
1 RA-5c to patrol 230 nm north, 4 F-4b phantom SEAD and 2 intercept head for port ZRp, to pick up targets as they go.
Set up CAP EW and AEW around the carrier group with an EA-3b skywarrier, a few Crusader intercept and a Hawkeye.
My base at Da Nang IA looks pretty safe but one Phantom CAP out about 20 nm looks like a good idea.
With the AEW anad EW planes up I'm seeing a stack of AD mobiles and some fishbeds up around my target areas, better re inforce the long range CAPs, send two flights of 3 phantoms with a skywarrier EW escort for the start of the trip.
I modify the Vigilante's course so as to run in at military speed towards my points of interest then flash up the radar and run across their face then scamper back home, that should give me a good look at my targets.
With my front wave of planes 150 nm out I get possitvie fixs on a number of SAMs, mostly SA-2, so they are my targets, launch more SEAD this time A-4 skyhawks with Phantom escorts.
My advanced Recon and EW planes have picked up a string of surface contacts sitting about 70 nm off shore, I'll take care of them with a four unit flight of Crusader precision loadout attack craft, hope their bullpups will do the job if these guys are hostiles and looks like they are, yep old PG sub chasers, no threat but I better clean them up.
My advanced CAPs are about 25 nm of shore with EW escort, I might just ping the radar and see if my seads have unwanted and unseen hostiles nearby.
My first SEAD target just lit up its radar, lets poke up our nose for a quik look, fire and sqirt back home. Four shrike away, fishbed picked up EW about 200 nm out back of the targets, leave him, another PG nearby, let him have two shrike while the first two shrike hit home and silence the sam. The shrikes missed the PG try two more and get home, missed again, I'll waste no more of them on puny boats not worth the effort.
My second wave of SEAD (Skyhawks are about 50 nm of the coastand still no sign of fishbeds coming out to play, no worries to me if they don't).
With some A-6s on the deck loaded up with shrike I send them off to hammer SAM, no real escorts left except for some sidewinder Crusaders so we'll send them along and keep a good eye out.
The Viginalnte is starting his sweep across the front of the enemy positions and has picked up some shippping, some looks like neutral cargo ships some are unkown enemy but out of the way for now.
Fighters approaching from inland but still well out of range, keep an eye on them though.
The four crusader bombers are coming in for one of the PGs, lets see how we go...radar on...three bullpups away, one PG to the bottom and more to come.
Get the mind on the pointy end, skyhawks approaching their targets, one group in enemy SAM in range, hit the radar on the nearby patrolling phantom and keep an eye peeled for SA-2s.
Two shrike headed for Haiphong harbour,,,, out of know where I loose a phantom escort to one of the skyhawk group, nearly in range so put on the throttles, let fly all shrike and head home pronto.. meanwhile four more shrikes Haiphong bound and 6 more planes coming home.
Still can't see what hit my phantom.
The SAM site cops four shrikes and suffers some damage but is still in business, the harbour takes only one hit.
Meanwhile the Crusader bomber on ASUW attack has got one hit our of five bullpups, send another boat to the bottom and heads home.
It will be a while before we need bombing runs from the skyhawks so more shrikes are pulled out of the magazines and another wave of SEAD is prepared.
Enemy fighteres are still 90 nm inland, but seem to be taking a cautious approach, keep the EWs out there and the Vigilante goes by for another sweep a bit closer in to map the targets.
Advance CAP/ EW (two phantom one skywarrier) "Can't see it but some ones firing cannon at us, we're getting out of here full speed" Might be what got the other phantom??
Radars go 'hot' still can't find the bandit, CAP AFA splits of its EW (and sends it home) and comes in afterburner and radar hot to give cover, where is that bandit??
All quiet, close call, lets get home.. HOT HOT, SA-2 visual, must be that unit hit early back on line, GO GO afterburner.. home..one phantom hit and down.
SEAD attack group coming in redirected to SA-2 come in low, the CAPs are going home, low on fuel, three phantoms can hang around for a while and get you in but don't linger.
The longer range AGM 45b shrikes carried by the phantoms are proving vastly better than the 45As of the Skyhawks and A6, so we'll loadout an extra pair of phantoms for the next sead op.
Control, control, AOA (SEAD group A6s) "Surface contacts by IR every where, we'll take an opertunity strike at anything we can and get out fast."
6 shrike away none got through, ten shrike away and so are we! Four hit home, nearly wasted on S-60 AAA, but one less set of eyes to spy our next sortie.!!
Control to all flights, come home and reload/ refuel for next wave, job well done.
Control, flight AXA request a tanker airbourne, we're pretty low on fuel and a top up would make us feel a bit more comfy, Got that tanker on the way.
....
Slurp slurp, thanks for the drink be on deck in 20.
..
Loadout some of those skyhawks with rocket, we'll try that on those Patrol Boats, set a reminder for when they're ready to fly.
Get another vigilante up on patrol, feeling uneasy without a good eye in the sky out where I want it.
Send out two flights of 4 skyhawks with shrikes, see if they can soften up those patrol boats and if it stays quiet they might get a go at some of the easier land targets, we need to get the lights out on those radar and SAM sites.
The skyhawks send another patrol boat to the bottom and return home, one flight 'hawks on their way to convert the next patrol boat into a fish haven while two flights of phantom/ skyhawks take off for anonther SEAD attack on SAM sites.
Fishbed picked up ESM, possible threat to skyhawks with 5 nm to run to target, those patrol boats aren't worth much so lets bring those boys straight home pronto. Yeah the vigilante has got it too, but still no reliable fix, could be right on their tail....Bingo, got him, he's 80 nm away, breath easy boys but home.
If our SEAD boys that are in the air take out the SAM NE of Haiphong we'll be able to hammer the port so get a few precision bombers in the air, better add a few skyhawk SEAD for good measure, and see if we can give them a clear run in to their target.
Opertunity target patrol boat, taken out by six shrike of returning skyhawks, you didn't waste that fuel afterall boys.
Rocket Man gets another patrol boat and going for the next.
Enemy long range radar just got it's lights knocked out by 45b shrikes, going after local SAMs and they're everywhere.
One more patrol boat to rocket attack, 10 nm to the next.
shrike hitting into SAM and radar west of Haiphong, but so many.... let loose and get going home.
Two more SAMs get a tast of shrike, damaged but not down, but we're low ammo and getting out.
Another SAM down, rocket and walleye do the job.
13 planes coming home, one loss, about five or six good hits and one SAM destroyed. That gets the way clear for some serious bombing runs on the port. In go 5 intruder with a phantom SEAD escort.
Another sampan goes down to rockets while 4 skyhawks weave their way in to take a pot at the last sticky SAM situated too near the port for our comfort, but not quite enough weave as one gets hit and is down before 2 shrikes away, 2 more away, ..last 2 away and on our way home with another weave.
As one more SAM site takes damage, one more junk goes to the bottom and another flight coming home.
Walleyes and bullpups take a toll on port Haiphong, 25%damaged.
Planning a wave of SEAD to clear a path to Gia Lam AP.
Another wave of SEAD/precision bombing, one phantom and 6 intruder, approaching SAM sites protecting the route to Gia Lam, need to dodge some damaged SAM sites that appear out of action but not dead, could be dangerous if they are still detecting our planes.
One vigilante in for refuel and another straight out, got to keep those eyes peeled.
Alert fishbeds in the sky taking off from Kepstill time to loose our load and get out.
Two more AAA destroyed with walleye and walleye on their way to Haiphong.
Another sam site takes some ARM shrikes and goes of air but not destroyed, the way is nearly clear enough for a strike on Gia Lam.
Three more walleye hit Haiphong with fishbeds closing in, that phatom is going to be very handy!
NO NO!! AAA take two intruder down. lets get the phatom up and with radar on, see if we can get acouple of theirs to make up the tally. 4 fishbeds coming in from the north, fast, let them in close then hit, put up some more fighters to double check. Fishbeds are turning for home, let loose two sparrows and scarper.
Just as we close on two fishbeds we get a victory, 8 ships sunk, 1 base damaged, 9 AD mobiles hit with 4 of those destroyed plus 3 armoured and 1 unarmoured unit killed but for the loss of 6 of our planes and pilots.
next installment: "Going for complete victory".
Don Thomas
-
Very sorry to all those who downloaded my Australia battleset file and found it was broken. A small clerical error (honestly) embedded the wrong database).
I've uploaded what should be right (I thought the original was right so I still have fingers crossed) and I hope a few of you have fun with it.
ps Long live the F-111!!
Get it from the downloads - battlesets: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=430
Don
-
Last week, Harriers and the HMS Ark Royal.
This week, the F-111 ...
Sad, very sad. F-111 was one of my favorite planes, and one of the more impressive of all the aviation periods.
At least in Spain we preserve some Harriers in our two little CVH/LHD ...
Well F-111s live on in Harpoon. I just fixed what was a significant (and embarrassing
, I'm very sorry) problem with my "Australia" battleset which includes much modified variants of a few Ardvaarks as well some pretty hard hitting guys in jeeps that 'launch' out the back of our Hercs.(download includes separate custom DB and battleset files with 6 built in scenarios, and I'm pretty sure they now work
)Don Thomas
-
-
HCE - 2010.014 - 2010/11/30
===========================
- Chg:0000 GE Player can now click groups on the map to select a target. This
was broken with the new group windows. So when you intend to
launch TLAM and you click "Attack", in the recent builds you had
to select the target group in the list of groups rather than
<snip>
n fixed but the fix impacts all types
of detections so thorough testing would be good. This is a
larger problem as well affecting all detections. The code
uses unit->emit (unit has this sensor type) and unit->detect
(unit can be detected by this sensor type) inconsistently.
(thanks Rene, JMS)
http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=176
That last one is a biggie. A wonder the game worked right at all! Would be good to make sure passive sonar, radar, ESM, visual detections still work.
ESM broken, erratic course behaviour.
Two matters, I've attached respective files both with game saves from 2010.14 game version, also their parent scenario. Use HCDB 101022 and westpac BS:
Game save "esm-14" has an FA-18 right near a sam, about to get visual. If you play the same parent scenario in the previous version ESM detection has already occurred.
Game save "flee-14" is a little later, the FA-18 has been split from the base out of formation but will not follow its course, it 'flees' the SAM now not detected.
Note game saves still seem to work only in the same game version so to see the behaviour in the previous game version you need the actual scenario supplied.
Don
2010.015 Release Notes
in General
Tony, you might have gone beyond the call of duty in improving detection, I got a missile reporting a visual contact.
I tried a game save (though probably pointless after the event) but the save seems to crash the program when I try to open it.
The missile was a single HARM approaching an SA-5b. GE version 2010.015 (from zip file, but shows as 2010.0.1.4 at mouse hover), DB hcus 101209.
I'll try to reproduce the visual and the crash.
Don