donaldseadog

In 2003, U.S. scientists demonstrated that D. radiodurans could be used as a means of information storage that might survive a nuclear catastrophe. They translated the song It's a Small World into a series of DNA segments 150 base pairs long, inserted these into the bacteria, and were able to retrieve them without errors 100 bacterial generations later.

 

I've been to Disney. This sounds more like a very sinister weapon rather than meaningful science.

Right, so I shouldn't buy an Ipod 'cause we'll soon be able to buy our favourite music coded in the DNA of a virus that we self infect ourselves with and hear the music continously even when the boss is nagging about some cockup form last week?

Sound good, where do I put my name down?

Don.

 

 

and music pirates who get illegal copys will die from those music bacterias?

 

Sounds linke something the music industrie ist dreaming of for generations...

Ye, great idea. I think we should start filing patent applications now!

Before I buy the full version I'd like to know if the download is fully representative of the game or has it been 'tweaked' as a teaser?

 

The game mechanics you see in the demo are exactly what you get in the real game (except for the march of builds as new patches are released). However the demo does better take advantage of the current state of the game via the rebuilt USNI scenarios than do most of the 'legacy' scenarios. So I can't honestly say every scenario in the full game is going to stack up to the demo. Plus you'll have quite a few user created scenarios here at HG that do take advantage of the recent advancements.

Now, my opinion here is very humble but I think the great strength of HCE is in the huge amount of user created scenarios from all parts of the world. I'm curretnly playing some new ones, "Drakes Passage" and the 'easy' version of "Breakout" - "breakout2" I think its called. Quite different from one another and demanding in their own ways.

Whether you like fast action or involved planning there are scenarios for you. Whether you live in Nth America, Europe or Australia (yours truely) you'll find stuff in your back yard.

I can't see anyone who likes the demo not loving the full version and the variety of user scenarios.

GO FOR IT>

Don Thomas

As a quick partial annoyance reducer how about disabling or removing the Cascade menu option?

You get my vote.

Don

In 2003, U.S. scientists demonstrated that D. radiodurans could be used as a means of information storage that might survive a nuclear catastrophe. They translated the song It's a Small World into a series of DNA segments 150 base pairs long, inserted these into the bacteria, and were able to retrieve them without errors 100 bacterial generations later.

 

I've been to Disney. This sounds more like a very sinister weapon rather than meaningful science.

Right, so I shouldn't buy an Ipod 'cause we'll soon be able to buy our favourite music coded in the DNA of a virus that we self infect ourselves with and hear the music continously even when the boss is nagging about some cockup form last week?

Sound good, where do I put my name down?

Don.

Looks like a wish list item, eh. I haven't found a single program in which I like cascade, in fact if it wasn't for the great Australian beer by that name I'd reckon the whole word could be done without.

Don.

 

Well, I understand there's a rather pretty mountain range somewhere with that name, so perhaps we shouldn't get *too* hasty here ...

Sounds like a great place for drinking the beer, now where's that esky?

Don

I'm wondering if it's possible to get some kind of "lock" for the windows, as I'm functionally an idiot, I keep managing to press the "cascade" button and ruin my window sizes and whatnot. Could we get a "custom" remembering feature or a lock so you can't change it?

 

Been there, done that too many times to count. I hate the 'cascade' button. I'd be happy enough if we got rid of it or replaced it with some other useful feature, like the 'window lock' you mention.

Looks like a wish list item, eh. I haven't found a single program in which I like cascade, in fact if it wasn't for the great Australian beer by that name I'd reckon the whole word could be done without.

Don.

I cant get the formation window to close in the Unit window with the new beta, not unless Im having a brain dump.

Well I'm not the most knowledgable but I'll have a stab with a few questions...

Which beta, I'm currently using 2009.0.4.9 and not seeing any problems related to the formation window.

I guess your using the 'formation' button or the F4 key, these should only operate if the 'group'window is active and doesn't seem to show up the formation in the 'unit' window.

Does it happen in all games? Does the game keep playing? If the game is saved and reopened is the problem still there?

Can you do a screen print to show what's happened?

Don Thomas

Was here someone able to win the scenarion without cheat mode and without analysing the red side in the scenario editor? Further, we have a 30 Su-35 with 4xAA-12 (Range 94 nm), 16 MiG-31 with 6xAA-X-13 (Range 53.3 nm), 8 Su-34 with 4xAS-17 (Range 75 nm) and 17 EF with 6xMeteor (Range 54 nm) vs. 33 F-18 with 6xAIM-120 (Range 44 nm). Was here someone able to down a Su-35?

 

I had no particular trouble with Red air, including the Su-35s, but keeping my carrier from getting hit by ASBM is another matter.

Trying to pop the ballistic missiles is hard. I assume it's because of their height and a lot of AAMs and SAMs can't get to them.

I put fighters out beyond the ships' SAMs range and try to get what ever is coming in with mnimal expenditure of the shipboard missiles. I can't get the ASBMs like this.

Against the fighters I achieve most success by using the stealthiest fighters I have and patrolling at very low altitudes with some EW planes further back and up high. (If I haven't been pelted with anti ship missiles I keep radar inactive all through the ship group formation.) When incoming fighters are detected I send in a small fighter group (staying very low) and let them decide when to fire, add a few extra missiles and get out flat chat (afterburn high altitude). Often have to then get back home for fuel so if I sent off all my longer range AAMs (and got good kills) I don't mind.

The best I've done is to run out of time with most of my ships afloat and all red bases to the west destroyed along with large numbers of SAM and SSM sites destroyed. Some of these take a huge number of anti radar and decoy missiles to kill. I've been close to what I think are the straights of Malta.

While the initial assault (once your surface group is detectd) is pretty full on, if you survive it then its a matter of detect and destroy surface installations and planes. The planes tend to die off, even if you don't kill hundreds. If you're game tweek the scenario to put the mobile units in multiple start locations and make the aircraft patrols continuous and in larger unit, it really gets hard!

Don.

Whoo hoo, one I can answer

 

Land unit operation is different due to the short distances involved. HC uses group center to group center distances for many targeting operations and when unit spacing tends to be greater than weapon range group center to group center calculations make for a game of groups chasing each other in tight little circles and never firing (funny as it may be to watch). So Land operations have to be micromanaged. The AI has the upper hand as it can check if units are in range every second. The player tends not to like to do that. Sure it screams for some staff assistance (and for a while we did let friendly ground units auto-fire on enemy ground units) but the manual route can work now and again. I can destroy a T-72 or two with the M-1s in WestPac 1.0 pretty regularly but I lose in the end too and bring in aircraft.

 

Hmmm ... perhaps it would work better if the player put each land unit in its own group?

...or stick units wit longest range out in front??

Knowing what is out there (and might shoot back as soon as you're in range) seems pretty important. If you have the range advantage go in if no aircraft are available, other wise run and hide. That's my approach.

Don

I've suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure on my home computer, and with it being the holidays it will be several days before I can even get a new one in to fix it. I will be able to get an old one up and running, but it will basically be limited to internet and the like. I'll update you when I am back to full running capacity.

Some of those Harpoon enemy can sure creep up on you, but crashing you're hard drive is underhanded if you ask me!

Best of luck getting an early replacement, any chance there's one in the xmas stocking??

Don.

I noticed this in 'The Australian' newspaper (november 24th).

The link to the www article is: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/natio...f-1225802738569

The summary: OFF-the-shelf military purchases offer big savings and reduced risk for taxpayers compared with do-it-yourself, but come with a major trade-off -- a potential sacrifice of the nation's defence self-sufficiency, a federal government-backed security think tank warned yesterday.

The article mentions some of our recent less than ideal R&D and design/ building efforts and compares them to some recent success with straight purchases such as USA battle tanks.

Considering we don't even make our own washing machines anymore I'd think it obvoious that we shouldn't be trying to build submarines and the like, but who am I to know these things.

Don Thomas

Random thought --- could this problem be an artifact of the aircraft with the radars running out of endurance, and being replaced after they land, leading to a gap in coverage? Or you run out of aircraft of the relevant type and loadout, so the last patrol is never replaced?

 

That would be my initial thought as well - something related to formation patrols using radar.

 

I wondered about that too, but, the radar pickets I sent out were only 4 of the 8 Hawkeyes in my group. I would think that the game would put a new plane on station before removing the one that's already out there. The other Hawkeyes I kept as replacements and didn't use them.

T6Simtek did a saved game and report in issue tracker (thanks) so I looked at this and did a counter test save game and posted in issue tracker. I made no concrete conclusion but seemed to relate to the main group not having any radar burning. Last I looked it was into capable hands so I guess we'll know soon.

Don Thomas

HCE - 2009.049 - 2009/11/28

===========================

- Chg:B140 GE Let's not allow firing guns at submerged subs in the torp

counter-fire situation.

- Chg:2447 GE Phantom air group attempts landing. (thanks Herman)

See http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2529

Confirm phantom air group (it was enemy aero tanker) requesting landing no longer occurs. (seemed fixed before 2009.36?)

Don Thomas

- 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)

 

Don't forget to update the issue tracker when you deal with the B### items. Thanks!

HCE - 2009.049 - 2009/11/28

===========================

- Chg:B140 GE Let's not allow firing guns at submerged subs in the torp

counter-fire situation.

!

 

The counter-fire situation is fixed. I was able to fire a torpedo, but not guns.

 

Nice work . When looking at B142 it may help to run the test save from the issue report in the demo to understand what it going on. That may give insignt on how to strip Middleweights (I think that's the root scen) to test with the non-demo build.

Re B142, I thought it was being within 3 miles but with weapon range of less than 3 mile, I've seen that lots of times, so I tried to re build the same thing for HCE (even used the same base in westpac with similar extra structures etc. However I can't get the same refusal to attack, I've used 2008.44, 2009.36, 2009.44 & 2009.49. I've tried moving targets in the formation by small amounts and seem to have had the correct distances apart but can't duplicate the action. I used rockeyes of zero range from A6E Intruder.

Anxious to see this duplicated.

Don.

(edited Don)

I had another go, this time stripping down Middleweights (that is the scenario-in westpac) and using 2009.42, but still couldn't get same behaviour as in the demo. I'm beat, step forward some guru please.

Funny thing, when played in the demo game the 'destroyed' SAM site never disappears from the unit window and is still available as a target in the 'attack' window (repostion attacking plane to the west of target base), this behaviour doesn't seem to happen in the full game version?

I found a useful tanker trick that I haven't seen posted here I'd like to share. It comes in handy for real long range missions that takes a couple of refuels to make. Attach a couple of tankers to a F-15, send them out for the long range mission. Make sure your game time is running in real-time (1 second game-time equals 1 second game-time) for the next step. Select the group after takeoff and split 1 tanker from the group. When you are prompted to set a course for the new group, select yes then cancel the next menu item. Now go into the join menu and join this tanker to the other 2 aircraft. Later on, when you refuel, only one tanker will refuel your unit. If you didn't do this, both tankers would refuel the F-15 and leave. The F-15 gets the same amount of fuel from 1 as from 2 in the tests I ran. When I split the tankers, the range is increased, as it should be and your range is greatly increased.

 

Hope this helps.

Yeh a good trick, any means by which you end up with tankers in separate units (ie more than one tanker unit in the group) will give you this. If the tankers are of mixed platform (different aircraft types) then you can do it when putting your group together for launch. Also if launching from a pair of cariers in the same surface group, I think if you take tankers from differnet carriers they end up in separate units.

The tanker unit of lowest unit ID number (last added to the group when putting 'launch' together) will refuel first, so put you're tankers of shortest duration (range) in last.

Also if the group has multiple units for refuelling, say antiradar units and precision units, put the shortest range units in last (they will get the lowest ID unit number) as they take the first lot of fuel.

Don thomas

Playing in 2008.027, my first tanker split prompt lets me choose between either carrier, the more distant carrier is selected by default for some reason, I select the closer one and the empty tankers go to the closer one.

 

The second set of tankers split from the group again showed both carriers for landing and this time the closer carrier was the default. Is there any chance the first set of tankers really took off from the more distant carrier? I found the situation strange in a few ways, we already knew tanking is still rather wacky, but have tankers split twice from a group is a new one on me.

I'll have a look too to see if it fits with what I know. I've seen tankers split twice, I've set them up to do so. If the tankers are in different units refuelling seems to take place from the loweset numbered tnaker unit (all tankers in unit), when more fuel is needed later tanker units do the job.

(I sometimes split tankers and rejoin the group to get them into separate units)

I suspect that if two carriers are in the one group and tankers are selected from each carrier (at the time of launch) they would end up in different groups too. As you say tankers are a world of their own and difficult to understand.

Don Thomas

(edit Don Thomas, in reply to self)

Yep, the tankers are in separate units (different tanker platforms). The lower ID unit refuels first, then a bit later (when refuel trigger occurs again) the second tanker unit refuels). I found this some time back when doing a lot of refuelling and set up a number of tests.

Other aspects seemed to work OK.

These aspects, and perhaps other similar ones, now force the player to constantly tend the friendly groups - a situation that didn't exist in older versions to my knowledge. This isn't really a regression, because I don't recall any of this stuff existing in the past; instead it's a new development - that unfortunately isn't an improvement, from the standpoint of facilitating the theatre commander role. If you feel these observations aren't accurate, I'm curious how your view differs and/or what the actual situation is.

 

Thanks!

It ain't easy being the guy at the top who takes the final can! Even worse when you don't think the guys under you know their job! It happens, eh.

Seems to me a lot of your points are perhaps items for the wish list. If you haven't yet wondered through that part of the harpgamer world, I'd suggest have a look and start your own. You might even find a lot of your items there in one form or another.

Wish list items can end up being implemented, I guess the more time the coding guys have to attend to the sharp end of development the sooner they do, that's my guess anyway.

HCE has certainly changed since my encounter with the old DOS harpoon version 1, and I agree that in some ways behaviour of units isn't always better, but I'm convinced the game as a whole is a huge improvement. I don't know if the 20th anniversary package is available yet, but if you get it and start running through games in the older version working up to the current, I don't think you want to go back to the old for too long, other than for nostalgia, 'least I don't.

Don.

Although I'm sure this info is lurking around somewhere right under my nose, it has defied my attempts to find it, soooo...

 

Could someone kindly direct me to any "operating manuals" that exist and specifically address the "control options" that are available for the HCE, in particular, info about the available Hot Keys, Function Keys, and/or keyboard shortcuts, and their respective functions... as well as info about where to find any game controls or info displays that aren't obviously available via the basic menu options, etc.

 

Also, although not as important, I am curious about what command line switches are available, and when they are needed.

 

TIA!

Try "downloads"/ "harpoon classic" / "tools/mods/docs" (or something pretty close)

There is also plenty of info in the HC Beta Testing section in the Harpoon classic/ commander edition section from the main harpgamer window, have fun.

Don.

Very thanks for your feedback, Don, I regret I'm very busy in my new job for Harpoon testing, sigh

Hey, maybe Tony's rich good looking woman (when he finds her) has a sister for you, or are you catered for already in the companion department?

(hmmm, abit personal there of me, maybe no need to answer).

Thanks for the help especially in view of your work, one of the things that makes harpoon really good to get involved with, those that know helping those who want to

Don.

Don, have you marked in the test the DPS (dipping sonar) flag ? If not, may be a factor of the irregular behaviour of the sonars in Alize or Atlantique.

Thanks,

Uhm, I guess the short answer is no. (Didn't know about that one). I'll have another go, in the meantime plenty of room for others to make Brads list of industrious testers.

Don

well thanks to broncepulido (and much learning) I can confirm that the sonars work (quite realistically) in loadouts.

I removed the dipping sonar from a sea king and placed it in the load out, went hunting subs and it detected them. Operates as normally (ie doesn't turn on via the sensor switch but by the period button or when hovering low/very low.

I also used a logging report to look at some sonars attached to fixed wing planes. While they appear to function they don't seem likely to detect anything, a value that comes up in th logging - "interference" is very high and I suppose that comes to reason even at loiter if the dipping sonar is doing 90 knots (bder Don!!)

Don.

Don, have you marked in the test the DPS (dipping sonar) flag ? If not, may be a factor of the irregular behaviour of the sonars in Alize or Atlantique.

Thanks,

Uhm, I guess the short answer is no. (Didn't know about that one). I'll have another go, in the meantime plenty of room for others to make Brads list of industrious testers.

Don

We still need verification that radars and sonars in loadouts really do their thing. Thanks all

Can confirm air search and surface search radar works when included in a load out:

<snip>

Don

I'm not getting a result with sonar. I've tried UMS 4249 fitted to Alize and BSY-2 fitted to Atlantique 2. Neither are available to turn on/off in either group or unit window although they show up range rings in the unit window under some speed/altitude conditions. Although both show in the PE as being both active and passive capable, the UMS show only active range rings and the BSY shows only passive range rings. I hunted a sub (running full speed at shallow depth back and forth under the planes) but no detection occured by either sonar (Atlantique MAD got detections).

I'm giving up for now, leave it to someone better.

Don.

We still need verification that radars and sonars in loadouts really do their thing. Thanks all

Can confirm air search and surface search radar works when included in a load out:

I modified a few planes so as to disable their normal radar and included the same radar in one loadout, but not in others. I also included radar in one loadout of respective aircraft with no radar normally installed. Radar operated normally in the loadouts with radar but no radar available in the other loadouts. Confirmed that respective surface and air targets detected.

Note, in the scenario editor the included radar doesn't seem to show in the "display" window for the loadouts.

I've not succeeded with a successful sonar. I've tried a 'shark tail' towed sonar in an Alize. It doesn't seem to work (I'll look at it more and get back- I assume I've done something wrong)

Don

You've stumped me here (how easys that), I assume we need an aircraft without built in radar or sonar but having same in one of the load outs. I can't find any such aircraft.

 

Correct .. the sensor (radar or sonar, and not a sonobuoy or jammer) has to be added to the actual loadout of the aircraft (like a weapon). You're probably quite right to observe that no aircraft in the HCDB (I assume that's what you tried to use) has such a loadout just yet. I don't think I've added any.

 

Would an A6-E fill that requirement? Either that or a Corsair II possibly.

 

I don't think either of those has a suitable sensor in their loadouts.

 

I had planned on creating the appropriate loadout(s) this weekend, and testing the code myself, if no enterprising beta tester beats me to it.

Oh boy, a challenge!! I'll have another go in the PE editor (gulp) If no ones hears from me again I've been sucked into that dreaded world (the PE editor) where I fear only gods go without fear. (I had a very bad esperience one time, I think it was to do with opening a file not in the main HCE directory- eek, maybe I won't try).

(coward) Don.

I played Harpoon back in the good ol' DOS days in the 1990's and was thrilled to discover that it is still in development. I downloaded the demo for HCE and saw the GUIK scenario I used to play for hours. Well, I decided that that was enough for me and bought it. Bought it online, was sent my serial number, copied and pasted it in and . . . . nothing. I get an error that there is a problem with my serial number and to contact support (support@matrixgames.com). I've sent three e-mails this week to them and have gotten no response back. I'd really like to play my game that I spent $40 on, but at the very least I'd like for someone who receives money when I pay them to acknowledge when someone has a problem and reply back to try to help fix it.

 

I'm just wondering: is anyone there, or has the fleet been overcome by ghosts?

Rest assured that in no time at all some of the more knowledgeable guys here will come to your rescue faster than a supersonic surface skimming missile.

I wish I had some idea myself,

PS welcome to the HCE world.

Don.