donaldseadog
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by donaldseadog
-
-
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.
Confirm can now select for attack by 'clicking' with mouse on target group in player window.
Have started testing detections:
Player aircraft seem to be detecting OK by visual, IR and radar of ships, bases and aircraft but seem to have a problem detecting SAM sites (will test specific with smaller scenario).
Also AI doesn't seem to be detecting ship groups with all radar burning and close to base but I'll test this further too.
Seem to get common crash after cancelling ground attack from aircraft, will test further.
Don
I'm definitely seeing problems with ESM, Tony do you need a small game save say one plane approach one target?
Don
-
I use the new launcher, for download here at harpgamer. With this I organize my scenarios by database. I have a 65-80 folder with Rene's db and scenarios fitting it, and another one called HCCW for the db by CV32 and scenarios for it. Instead of starting HUCE directly I will use the launcher and point it to the database and scenario/savegame I want to use.
I like to use something like what TETET has described. Once you get used to the file type code you can tell what 'battleset' a scenario is from but not what database was used, so by organising the scenarios by database and starting the game from "launcher" it works pretty slick. (get the launcher from the downloads/ tools-mods-docs, the keyboard shortcuts that you can find in the tools-mods-docs is useful too))
I know you'll love it, I started with a version 1 demo from early 90s and when I got HCE I couldn't believe the improvements and the huge number of scenarios that the harpoon community share. Good to have you join the family.
Don
-
Way to go Ralf!
hehe..thx for the encouraging words, old friend. I´m gonna win, that´s for sure
Say Ralf, have you located the hostage neutrals yet?
I must say I'm impressed how well you're going without those F/A-18s, I thought you were a goner when you lost them. The RN F35s aren't very versatile I think though the meteor AAMs aren't bad to have on your side. If you'd been lucky you'd have had some F35Cs(?), with long range harm too, but such luxuries are had only by chance.
Best of luck, keep wearing them down, lucky theirs no limit to AAMs hey.
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.
Confirm can now select for attack by 'clicking' with mouse on target group in player window.
Have started testing detections:
Player aircraft seem to be detecting OK by visual, IR and radar of ships, bases and aircraft but seem to have a problem detecting SAM sites (will test specific with smaller scenario).
Also AI doesn't seem to be detecting ship groups with all radar burning and close to base but I'll test this further too.
Seem to get common crash after cancelling ground attack from aircraft, will test further.
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.
Will the sonar fix go into a new GE version that doesn't have the "sides" multiple group windows?
Don
-
I just gave it a try - very nice change of pace from the almost 'instant action' modern scenarios. I had a tough time with the Arado 163 seaplanes, they killed my patrols over the north sea left and right. Nevertheless I spotted two destroyers, Bismarck and Prinz Eugen pretty early. I've sent the CV group around Victorious to an intercept and after some more skirmishes with the Arados located them. I launched all of my torpedo bombers in groups of 4 Swordfish's against the battle group. Unfortunately all were shot down by Arados and AAA before any torpedo was launched. Somewhat frustrated I stopped the scenario then - guess I have to re-work my WWII tactics!
I noticed that two bases in England are located on top of each other. I think ACa and ABa?
I found that using different versions of the Game Engine (from the beta testing area, latest files) can give very different results in the WWs database games. There has been a lot of work done with close range guns/ cannon. I only wish I could remember which game version I preferred
Don
-
Perhaps I should have been a little more clear that what I observed is a distinct difference between the standard GE (say 2010.06) and the "sides" experimental version (say 2010.12).
In the "sides" GE version I've seen player subs and surface ships behaving a bit like AI subs/ aurface ships behave in the standard GE.
Don
-
IRC - there is no way to tell from the website if someone is chatting. I do want someday to integrate a chat client into the Launcher. Actually that's why I wrote a very basic chat client http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=281 . You can also use the Java IRC links from the home page or use a 'real' IRC client.
I think the chatting approach for the recent sides builds is still valid, much low-hanging fruit yet that doesn't benefit a lot from the effort of making scens and such. I'll holler and be cranky when the time arrives
Has anyone else noticed the game player's surface ships (and subs?) wondering around taking no notice of the plotted course?
I've seen it in complex games but it doesn't seem to happen in a simple scenario.
Also today I had an AWAC go wacko and fly off the page, I selected it using CTRL B (order of battle?) and ordered it to land which it did but it seemed like it was well off the map.
(The AI window is very handy for spotting plane groups you are sneaking in low to a target but forgot to split off the pair of aero-tankers
spotted like gangly bits on a bull)Don
-
The other day (while washing dishes) I wondered about how far back reverse compatibility of Data Bases is necessary. Does a current database need to be reverse compatible to before the last commercial full release? The 'new' (post EC2003) battlesets that use external databses have now been around for quite some time. When a new release appears necessary databases for the older scenarios could perhaps be provided separately in a 'legacy' section or the like.
At some stage we might see built in scenarios from the WWs or cold war period so some way of organising multiple databases would need to be built into the setup anyway.
If at every commercial release the data base could be 'tidied up' would there be advantages, e.g. more space for loadouts, erasing unwanted items?
I seem to remember that the current scenario editor puts hidden code in to the scenario to show what database was used for its writting, could be that future GEs will automatically look for the correct database?
Don
-
...................
The information for a selected unit is not displaying due to problems with the code. I hope to fix it for the next build now that I have a better understanding what everyone is going on about.
So for the recent "sides" game versions we've been kind of chatting with our observations, problems. Should we be trying to give you small game saves (as per the 'normal' feedback system) so as to make for you the problems clearer and finding the solutions quicker?
Don
-
Thanks to both and René for you commitment, without it HCe would have sailed into oblivion.
How are units selected in the unit window now? BTW
Thanks for the sunshine up the backside folks
. It really really helps your cause to hang out on IRC chat with us. Brad was there, asked an innocent question, and it sparked my interest enough to crank out a first effort. Frankly if he'd e-mailed me I would have went to bed like a responsible adult instead of writing code and testing. It isn't fair or democratic but that's how it worked. Plus Brad provided a useable DB mod right then and there. Targeted scens, saves, and DBs help your cause.The information for a selected unit is not displaying due to problems with the code. I hope to fix it for the next build now that I have a better understanding what everyone is going on about.
When I log into the harpoon site how can I see if there is IRC chat activity? Do I need to just follow the IRC link from the left mid side of the entry portal?
Don.
-
Oh dear Ralf, its a hard row without the long range ARMs.
Don
PS if you have one of the early versions, consider a 'victory' if you get to kill the 4 sam barges and 50% damage the port/ airfield that has 'captured' the civilian merchants (this is fixed in last update of scenario). Ideally your amphibious units should be in on the action but of course I can't specify how you do the damage other than having the amphibious units on station.
Yeah, I was surprised at how well those mig 21s perform, on a dollar basis they must be a bargain, how would $10 mil of f35s do against $10 mil of Bison???
-
A good idea, Rene. Thanks for putting it up.
I would have called it "Southeast Asia", though, as folks may want to use it for the modern era as well.
We could use more of these small, focused maps.
Thanks Brad...
But when i google for southeast Asia, the map covers more area than "my" Indochina map....
so it is a question of the zoom factor if i should redo the map covering the larger area and replace the indochina map or if the larger map should be an additinal one..
I'm thinking for the geographically illiterate (me, me ,me) maps like that with the countries noted would be nice to print and sit by the computer for reference. I'm interested where you got the map from, is it freely available (ie open copyright)?
Nice area to play with too, gets hard to keep AI from doing silly things with shipping, all those islands make great hiding places and small (stealthy) sam sites.
Don
-
This is for you Don
HCE - 2010.011 - 2010/11/03
===========================
- Chg:0000 GE When loading saved game show the player perspective in Group-1
window.
- Chg:0000 GE When loading from launcher show the player perspective in
Group-1 window. (thanks Don Thomas)
I've attached a simple game save (playing blue) which seems to show that the AI isn't taking opportunity kills (aircraft anyway).
Don
-
SAM barges make little kittens cry.
(I really do not like the SAM barges. They are a holdover from a time when HC lacked the ability to have mobile, land based air defences and we're way beyond that now. And if I had my way, they would be gone, gone, gone, but unfortunately we need them in the DB to maintain compatibility with the legacy scenarios out there that use them. New user scenarios should not use them, imho, because one day they will be history).
Well that provides an easy solution to the original problem, shame they look pretty cute I reckon...
Looks like another updated file needed.
..Should we have some little list of 'things not good practice' for scenario writing, like the multiple subs in a group, I seem to keep goofing up these things?
Don
-
I don't know if the bug is in my head or the game so I thought I'd post here first.
I had a scenario which included killing a SAM barge as a victory condition and while my first tests seem to work it later turned out that it didn't.
In the scen editor, victory conditions command, I selected "ship" subtype "brg", but when I checked via the 'edit' it listed 'AAA'.
Anyone know how I should do this?
Don
-
Hi Don,
I´ve been out of HCE for several months - or was it even longer? - but now I´m back. I´ll test your new scen asap.
Regards,
Ralf
Just uploaded an upgrade, I had a victory condition problem with sam barges, so switched to mobile ad. (also a red sub with zero initial speed)
Hope you have fun, I look forward to comments as some aspects don't seem to go as I expect (nuke attack for one)
Don
-
File Name: hold on Diego Garcia
File Submitter: donaldseadog
File Submitted: 20 Nov 2010
File Updated: 21 Nov 2010
File Category: IOPG
DB Used: HCDB101022
Authors: Don Thomas
Battleset-IOPG: .scp - EC2003 - EC2003
Britain and France find them selves facing off with India....
updated to fix a victory condition problem
hopefully third time lucky, I hate working at 11pm.
Another update, sorry guys, I think I've got the victory conditions sorted out.
Don
-
If patrols are sent out towards the desired initial points, what is the likely hood of the AI using the patrolling aircraft to launch an attack? (any?) Does AI launch attacks on already known objects, ie bases, only on specific "launch/attack" commands from the scenario? Will it initiate attacks of its own accord when it detects aircraft/ ships/ mobile land units? I can never really understand how this works.
Don Thomas
Correct, aircraft sent on LR Patrol missions will not attack an airbase, port, etc. They would attack a ship or sub group, and should attack a mobile land unit group. I don't know if there might be some combination of MLUs and fixed bases that would at least make it appear a multi-axis attack was underway. True scenario craftsmanship required there I bet.
How 'bout, ring the base with SAM launchers within the same group?
I tried a few combinations of different targets within the formation of a land base, and sent out patrols and direct attacks. The patrols will fly right over head and not attack any of the targets so long as they stay in the formation of the land base. If you 'split' any of the targets then the patrols will attack.
You can have a base and a MLU group coexist at the exact same location. The MLU group can have its units spread out in its formation. If patroling enemy units detect the MLU group (and are suitably armed) they will likely attack the MLU group, but still won't attack the actual base. So as Tony says you can make it look like a multi directional attack (and you'll have to defend against it) but you will still need a long distance straight line attack of the base as well. I can't work out how the air defences (SAMs & the like) are picking their targets though, so you might need some aircraft defending the base so you can target some of the attackers directly.
If you don't mind the restriction, instead of a land base, you can use a FARP (its listed as a ship under 'INTL MISC FARP') and attached other units like buildings, radar and SAM. You'll only have VTOL and helos though. Patrols will go after such a group once detected. One thing to watch is that the AI might change its aircraft load outs and directly attack once the target group has been identified.
Don
-
The "display" command for "active units" only seems to display units for the player only, even if you activate a window for AI. Also as oponent units are detected they aren't listed in the display for active units.
Don Thomas
How many statements are you making here?
By display, do you mean the platform display? Any elaboration is appreciated. I initially had the feeling you are talking about the mini report window that should speed, heading, damange,...
Sorry I wasn't clear..
From the main screen the platform display can be reached from keyboard short cut "D" or hitting the "Display" button in the Report window.
In the platform display select "show active unit". For aircraft it seems to show all aircraft for both sides but for ships it only seems to show the players ships.
I'll write a few scenarios and sort out more detail.
Don
Had another look. Ships and subs behave the same but differently to aircraft. For Ships and subs they appear to get listed in the "active unit" display of the "platform display" only after the player gets a positive ID (a bit hard to tell until the unit window behaves a bit better) but all planes are listed irrespective of whether they've been detected.
(maybe it is just that each side already knows what air craft are at a base, so all are listed in the active unit display but for ships and subs they are only listed as they are IDd by the player? so maybe this is correct?)
Should the listing of active units be dependant on which sides group window is activated or (as is current) dependant on which side is the player? Maybe it is only a point of interest and not that critical to the game?
I wonder though about detection and ID in respect of knowing whether a contact is neutral or enemy. Surely you need to make a positive ID before knowing this yet once you get a full position fix with course and speed you seem to get recognition of 'side' without needing positive ID of vessel / aircraft.
Don
-
This is for you Don
HCE - 2010.011 - 2010/11/03
===========================
- Chg:0000 GE When loading saved game show the player perspective in Group-1
window.
- Chg:0000 GE When loading from launcher show the player perspective in
Group-1 window. (thanks Don Thomas)
The "display" command for "active units" only seems to display units for the player only, even if you activate a window for AI. Also as oponent units are detected they aren't listed in the display for active units.
Don Thomas
-
Yup, you have no way of accomplishing exactly what you want in this case. You can fake it by placing airfields in mid-ocean or using aircraft carriers.
If patrols are sent out towards the desired initial points, what is the likely hood of the AI using the patrolling aircraft to launch an attack? (any?) Does AI launch attacks on already known objects, ie bases, only on specific "launch/attack" commands from the scenario? Will it initiate attacks of its own accord when it detects aircraft/ ships/ mobile land units? I can never really understand how this works.
Don Thomas
-
Okay guys, we have the Baka construct from http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...411&hl=baka for aircraft. Do we want to code that same kludge into ships/subs/MLUs?
Note that the release notes say that Baka is case sensitive, perhaps that was your issue earlier in the thread Don?
Thanks for the reminder to the release note.
I'll double check re the 'case', from memory one of my tries was in HCWW db using the stock Baka 250 launched from a ship using my new mount. I'll double check.
Has anyone else tried to get it to work? You guys are more experienced than me especially with DBs.
<edit1>
I was using a Baka with upper case 'B', in fact as I thought I used the HCWW db and used the actual Baka 250 for some tests. Used other Baka self made weapons too.
I tried using the merchant ship (HCDB-) with the suitcase nuke but had problems: when ship is player it is very hard to get within range, when ship is AI it only seems to fire machine gun. Also the suitcase nuke isn't 'ship target', so I modified for 'ship target' but still didn't do much good until I increased the range. (also to use the nuke nuclear release must be given, why did that take me so long to work out??
)Don
Dual Core Support?
in General
I can't comment on dual core stuff (I use a celeron 2.8GHz in my Acer TravelMate 240) but I do know that it made a HUGE difference for me when I went from 256 meg RAM to 512. Even if you do buy 'up' I'd look at an instant RAM upgrade at purchase if its not dear, and usually it's not.
Don Thomas