donaldseadog
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by donaldseadog
-
-
Sorry if this is either obvious or unhelpful but if it is useful great. In my testing installation (I've only just sorted out installations as suggested in beta testing guide) I have basically the latest beta (der!!) but I still have the 2009.036 GE (left with winharp32.exe name) and I've named the beta GE winharp39.exe.
Now if I want to run a particular saved game or scenario (with an optional selected database, which I have in the beta main folder and with descriptive names) I use the launcher and just amend the GE name in the launcher window depending upon which GE I want to use. Then to compare how it runs in the alternative GE you just go back to the launcher (don't close it) and the same options and games/scenarios are set, just amend the name of the GE and press launch.
A similar thing can probably be done if the GEs being compared are in different folders, just change the GE folder (I'm assuming the paths for game\scenario\database are absolute and not relative to game folder) - this is probalby easier if you have enough hard drive space for three or more installations but I don't.
Don Thomas
-
This is just an observation made using HCWW data base in particular ship to ship naval gun combat. Where a ship has say three twin turrets AI will choose say eight rounds to fire at a target will will fire them as four salvos from the first available turret with the inherent time delay defined by the turret's ROF when in most cases (depending upon angles etc) six rounds could have been initially fired, two from each of the three turrets.
The first two rounds are likely to do little more than wake up the enemy who might then choose to reply with all guns blazing before ai gets in the second salvo.
Also while we are advised of missiles etc being detected there is not such an obvious notice drawn to being pummeled to death by 10" shells unless you keep a good eye on the message board and don't have the time compression wound up too far.
It must have been hard in the old days, eh
Don Thomas
-
Thanks for posting your scenario, Don!
Sharing one's own scenario creations is something that doesn't happen quite often enough in the Harpoon community. So thanks for taking the time to put something together and sharing it. It is something we very much welcome and encourage.
Two points on your submission:
1. The proper name of the database is "HCWW". Please use this for consistency's sake because there are several databases of various flavors out there, and we want to avoid confusion.
2. You should write up some orders for the player (using the Orders Writer) and include this in your zip file. The "orders" should include a little commentary that tells what your scenario is about, or what the player might expect. The actual zipped file should contain three individual files:
(1) the actual scenario file, which are automatically identified by their filename extension (as explained in the FAQ).
(2) a file containing a set of orders for the BLUE side
(3) a file containing set of orders for the RED side
If the scenario is intended for play by one side only, say BLUE, you should still add some basic information in the other (RED) tab, if only wording to the effect that "This scenario is intended for play by the BLUE side only".
Thanks for reminding me, I guess I got a bit slack trying to get it posted late at night. I'll fis the ommissions and add them to the download site.
Don.
PS is there a way to include a hyperlink to the data base or is it OK to just include the corrrect name?
-
File Name: WWII skirmish
File Submitter: donaldseadog
File Submitted: 10 Aug 2009
File Updated: 11 Aug 2009
File Category: WestPac
DB Used: HCWW-090805
Authors: don thomas
Battleset-WPac: .scq - WPac - WestPac
Something to start playing with the great WWs database, not included in this download, get the latest HCWW from the database downloads. If you're new to changing databases read the instructions attached to that download to ensure you don't loose your standard database.
In this scenario two conflicts are taking place on either side of Australia, one above (what I guess is ) the Coral Sea, one in the east indian ocean approaching Perth.
There may be some problems still being ironed out with this but the game can still be played and you can get a feel for big naval guns and little pea shooter AAWs.
Have fun.
Don Thomas
-
I'm thinking I have something wrongly installed, I seem to have problems with testing with 2009.039 and WWDB.
I have a scenario in which a IPN carrier group sends out its planes apparently to intercept enemy on the other side of Australia, the planes appear to be running dry and disappearing off the unit screen.
I've attached a zip with a game save. group ZWR is sending off aircraft in a generally south westerly direction, they run dry.
Database WWDB 090805 used with GE2009.039 in westpac battleset.
I also had some GE crashes and posted that the other day in the 2009.039 topic but notice that it is labelled "testing complete", I assume I should have posted it here,is that correct?
Don
-
Autotest batch files for HDS III battleset completed without issues.
I want your computer.
Sorry but Ive given up on the batch tests
, my celeron just can't handle the big scenarios at anywhere near a reasonable speed, at time it slows to almost real time (well less than a minute per sec).If I run out of other stuff I'll have a look for map sets with only small scenarios. but I can't think of any.
Don
-
I was using 2009.39 doing a WWs scenario (in westpac) and got a lot of crashes that seem to have something
to do with air to ship action.
the GE/ database are: Build Date = Aug 3 2009
Database Versions:
Res: HCWW-090805,1249484203
Rsr: 1249484203
(taken from GE.log)
The situation seems to be reproducable, I did a couple of simple scenarios and got the same
thing (same error message).
I've attached in zip package; the GE.log and the saved game (saved from iterative save after 'launcher' start, very handy). I have others but I guess one is enough.
The crash doesn't always occur at the same time but is fairly quick, usually within a minute or so game time.
Don Thomas
-
By my reading of the thread, the following still need attention (doesn't mean the others are done and gone, just that they've been handled in some fashion).HCE - 2009.037
==============
- Chg:0000 GE ................thanks Brains)
- Chg:0000 GE Allow inertially only guided weapons to be fired against ships.
This probably breaks something else!
- Chg:0000 GE Move RCS logging to radar log, before it was always logged.
- Chg:B119 BS EC2003 GIUK 1.0 Scenario with modified VCs included.
...............EDC 8.0 Scenario with modified VCs included.
(thanks PAK & CV32)
1. I ran a number of tests with radar logging and all showed up entries for RCS (of which I'm totally ignorant but I guess it only matters that it was there). I ran the same without radar logging and got no RCS logging. I assume that confirms that item.
2. Has anyone done the inertial guided anti ship missile test? How do you determine a missle is inertial guided only, do you have to chase it up in the database via platform editor?
Don.
-
1. Within the game, a hot key to return to last focus.
2. An ability to land helicopters anywhere on land eg to wait for a refuelling craft.
3. resupply land and sea units with eg truck convoy, unrep ships.
4. in game and SE, an indication of refuelible aircraft
5. Completed intercept box include 'orders' option.
(I think that was the case in the old DOS game)
6. 'Attack' have an option to approach and concentrate attack on specific unit(s).
7. Set max time on station for patrols.
8. when dispatching a patrol have the speed and sensor setting boxes come up for setting same at the patrol point.
So eg can use P3s as anti-ship patrols.
9. Staff settings include default game speed and a hotkey (not 'return') to override
all else and get you there, or keep 1:1 as default and just have the unique hotkey.
(just about every thing in every one elses wish list)
Cut two:
10. When selecting aircraft units in the air intercept window I'd like to see their current armament, I hate sending off guys who are on their way home having used up all useful ammo (and I'm sure they hate me worse!).
Third go;
11. When using the launcher for testing game engine there is an option for iteratvie (not overwriting) saves of the game at regular intervals. My wish is that the saves can be done at user control by a keybooard shortcut. It would be nice to be able to define the folder and saved game file name.
12. When the 'auto play' option is used in command line (for testing) both sides longdistance attacks be launched, and perhaps the 'ctrl-alt-S' switch be activated.
13. For normal game play, the location of the group and unit window centres remain where they are when changing magnification and optionally when changin selected unit/group.
More wishes:
somehow being able to selectively link a custom database to a battleset (or better still a scenario) when opening the game and going through the 'Battleset' button.
Don.(I've run out of fingers)
I'd like to be able to ally with green (neutral) countries, either by some form of diplomacy (no idea how that would work) or by force eg taking out primary bases. AI also can do this.
-
HCE - 2009.037
==============
- Chg:0000 GE If the loaded scenario has no time limit set, default to 72
................., I'll attach my test rig to a later post.
We need testing of air to air guns in pre-EC2003 battlesets, the old 3nm Intercept/Escort dogfight guns should still work there and ideally any guns in loadouts should not work in an air to air capacity.
I might be of on a wrong tanget but I did a test in GUIK 2003 using the wws data base, attacking a base with a fighter escorted bamber group. the group did not defend upon attack from otherside fighters, I did a similar using standard database and the strike group retaliated to the defence fighters.
I've attached the test files and comments.
I note that the release notes for WWDB says it isn't intended for standard battlesets (but I assume wespac and the 2003 series should be OK as they don't have internal databases). I also note you only asked for pre EC2003 gun tests, not sure what led me into this.
NOTE, I used the '.037 beta release, I've only now seen the '.039
Don
-
I've played with the launcher 2009.037 and it seems to be working 100% for me,<snip>
In the case of iterative game saves inthe 'temp' folder, (wishlist item?) I'd like to be able to hit a key board shortcut to get the saves when I want them rahter than every X mintutes. Can this be done, I haven't managed it.
Don Thomas.
Thank you sir. You are exactly correct, throw the autosave location and thoughts onto your wishlist please. What you list are capabilities I would like to see as well which never hurts the chances of them happening sooner than some other additions.
Could you possibly try command line options with the SE? You seem capable and pretty much everyone else is cowering in fear of the command line
Funny that, I was fiddling with SE command line (though I could only guess what options were available, I'll try to find that out with this online session).
What I did was copy SE executable name into the GE name window of the launcher and used the variables that I thought would be applicable to the SE. I was able to open SE in the various battlesets, and open existing user and inbuilt scenarios as well as linking to remote databases.
ONLY problem was in linking to remote databases the database name needs to be the standard 'commondb.res' and so it has to obe located in a folder other than the HCE main folder.
I did also set up a shortcut and manually copied command line options from the launcher window with similar results (I think including the database name, I'll confirm once I get the full detaials (shit its cold here, can't type))
Don.
OK, I founf the stuff <- Chg:0000 SE Added command line options with the same functions
as the GE -b -c -d -r.
Added -t command line switch to specify working directory
i.e. -t d:\games\hcce
> earlier on in this topic and note the restriction in file path names, guess this was my database problem and will check it plus other stuff that I haven't done.
Don.
Back again,
I checked the problem I had with database names and it was the length (too many characters. While checking I noted that the launcher seems to provide the path name in the 'shorthand' notation to fix long folder names but the actual file name still needs to be whatever (is it nine characters or less, I can't remember)?
(hint, it's going to be good when the SE tab is done on the launcher).
I didn't do much to confirm the -t option, I only use one harpoon installation (I use a laptop for reasons of low power consumption-live in a solar/wind powered house) and my hard drive is over crowded as is. I did use it (with the standard path) and it worked, that's the best I can do there.
Don.
-
New launcher build uploaded. I would still like to see test results from the scenario editor command line options (loading scen to edit, specifying battleset, etc.)
Launcher: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...st=0#entry15003
I've played with the launcher 2009.037 and it seems to be working 100% for me, I had some problems with the previous versions when adding logging optinos in particular, but none now. I've successfully launched the game engine with as many combinations of game options and logging options, remote data base, pre '2000 battlesets, wespac and designer battleset (with resident and remote data base). I've run iterative game saves which seem to be working as I'd expect.
In the case of iterative game saves inthe 'temp' folder, (wishlist item?) I'd like to be able to hit a key board shortcut to get the saves when I want them rahter than every X mintutes. Can this be done, I haven't managed it.
I've checked the intro to the log report and the game windows too and the command line options seem to be coming through correctly in all cases.
Don Thomas.
-
HCE - 2009.037
==============
- Chg:0000 GE If the loaded scenario has no time limit set, default to 72
days. (thanks Brains)
- Ch.................................... GIUK 2.0 Scenario with modified VCs and orders included.
(thanks PAK)
- Chg:B118 BS EC2003 MEDC 8.0 Scenario with modified VCs included.
(thanks PAK & CV32)
For testing Baka and Air to Air guns you'll need other than stock DBs. Baka can be tested in Brad's WWII database. The Air to Air guns I imagine will come soon, I'll attach my test rig to a later post.
We need testing of air to air guns in pre-EC2003 battlesets, the old 3nm Intercept/Escort dogfight guns should still work there and ideally any guns in loadouts should not work in an air to air capacity.
I've run a scenario in Original GUIK, attached are (in zip) the scenario, three saves and a text explanation file.
Cannon in air to air loadouts seems to be fine up until ammo is depleted where the low ammo plane loiters rather than scarpers.
I'll test some other battlesets...
Don Thomas.
In view of new database for gun testing I'll use it and get back in a couple of days.
don.
I've done similar tests in designer series one and two in the GUIK battlesets and much the same result, ie dogfighting seems to occur correctly but planes running low on ammo usually (BUT not always) loiter rather than go home.
I've attached a couple of zips with the tests if of use.
Don Thomas
-
HCE - 2009.037
==============
- Chg:0000 GE If the loaded scenario has no time limit set, default to 72
days. (thanks Brains)
- Ch.................................... GIUK 2.0 Scenario with modified VCs and orders included.
(thanks PAK)
- Chg:B118 BS EC2003 MEDC 8.0 Scenario with modified VCs included.
(thanks PAK & CV32)
For testing Baka and Air to Air guns you'll need other than stock DBs. Baka can be tested in Brad's WWII database. The Air to Air guns I imagine will come soon, I'll attach my test rig to a later post.
We need testing of air to air guns in pre-EC2003 battlesets, the old 3nm Intercept/Escort dogfight guns should still work there and ideally any guns in loadouts should not work in an air to air capacity.
I've run a scenario in Original GUIK, attached are (in zip) the scenario, three saves and a text explanation file.
Cannon in air to air loadouts seems to be fine up until ammo is depleted where the low ammo plane loiters rather than scarpers.
I'll test some other battlesets...
Don Thomas.
In view of new database for gun testing I'll use it and get back in a couple of days.
don.
-
HCE - 2009.037
==============
- Chg:0000 GE If the loaded scenario has no time limit set, default to 72
days. (thanks Brains)
- Ch.................................... GIUK 2.0 Scenario with modified VCs and orders included.
(thanks PAK)
- Chg:B118 BS EC2003 MEDC 8.0 Scenario with modified VCs included.
(thanks PAK & CV32)
For testing Baka and Air to Air guns you'll need other than stock DBs. Baka can be tested in Brad's WWII database. The Air to Air guns I imagine will come soon, I'll attach my test rig to a later post.
We need testing of air to air guns in pre-EC2003 battlesets, the old 3nm Intercept/Escort dogfight guns should still work there and ideally any guns in loadouts should not work in an air to air capacity.
I've run a scenario in Original GUIK, attached are (in zip) the scenario, three saves and a text explanation file.
Cannon in air to air loadouts seems to be fine up until ammo is depleted where the low ammo plane loiters rather than scarpers.
I'll test some other battlesets...
Don Thomas.
-
HCE - 2009.037
==============
- Chg:0000 GE If the loaded .............. else!
- Chg:0000 GE Move RCS logging to radar log, before it was always logged.
- Chg:B117 GE Ferrying and Refueling fixes, also force refueling if the
tanker will hit bingo fuel before the refuelees hit optimal
fuel state for tanking. (thanks donaldseadog)
- Chg:0000 GE Added code for intercepts based on air to air guns, both player
and AI. Disabled the internal 3nm guns in commondb battlesets.
- Chg:B119 BS EC2003 GIUK 1.0 Scenario with modified VCs included.
(thanks PAK)
- Chg:B120 BS.................. in pre-EC2003 battlesets, the old 3nm Intercept/Escort dogfight guns should still work there and ideally any guns in loadouts should not work in an air to air capacity.
I've run the ferrying with tanker scenarios I had that were giving problems and confirm that the flights now occur as expected: planes are never refuelled straight after takeoff, tanker return to their base, and no planes run dry.
Don.
-
I'm wondering the range of the guns CV32 tested, I always have problems only with planes equiped with guns of a2a range less than 1 mile and am still having them with the 2009.037 betatest ...
Using the HCWW, I did find that the 0.50 cal MG aboard the P-40E Warhawk, with range <1 nm, was able to function.
As I said, plenty more testing needed.
I might have something wrong I guess, I did a scenario with ground mounted MGs with limited AAA capability and hovered helos at various heights from VLow to Medium and they just sat there laughing.
But taking into account Tony's comment about the game not being meant to handle these <1nm weapons I think I'll drop it unless I find something more substantial.
Don.
-
The Baka kamikaze code I've been playing with for awhile, so I can vouch for that one. It works very well.
Guns I have been able to verify with the HCWW (World Wars) database, so we no longer have 'cowardly' fighter pilots there, thankfully.
I have also been able to confirm that there does not appear to be any conflict between BVR (beyond visual range) AAMs and guns. AI controlled aircraft still shoot their BVR missiles when a target is within 'no escape' range.
More testing is needed, of course, before I start editing the HCDB database in earnest to add air-to-air guns to all appropriate platforms.
Hope this is correct place for reply, or should it be form the download of the 2009.037 test program?
Any way I'm here,
I'm wondering the range of the guns CV32 tested, I always have problems only with planes equiped with guns of a2a range less than 1 mile and am still having them with the 2009.037 betatest, Ive attached a zip with two test files and a text file summarising the tests:
generally my planes don't seem to behave as normal if they have guns of less than 1 mile range.
Also, when looking for such planes in the current database I found eg an Aden cannon (on Hawk 127 LIFT) that is catagorised as ordinance sub type bomb, this doesn't seem correct to me. I've included a test that illustrates the behaviour that I think is errant.
The test are all using the recent 2009.037 beta release and 2003 GUIK - This seems a good test battleset as you can use different databases (Is that correct?) I noted that Tony used it in his a2aguns test (Hey where do you buy F14s with those guns? I wont one!)
Don.
PS How do you find out the things that need testing?
-
Ha, you must be all asleep at last.
I've attached some log files after testing the new launcher.
........... out what all the logging report items mean?
Don.
At one time we never slept but you'll catch us napping now and again these days.
Re: cmndatab.txt my counter-test was:
"D:\Games\HCCE\Winharp32.exe" -b 22 -c "D:\Games\HCCE\BARENTS.SCm" -d "D:\Games\HCCE\db\commondb.res"
It ran fine, loaded the HCDB-090427 specified by the command line and opened the specified scenario. Can you perhaps zip and attach all of the files involved in that test. I suspect your trouble may have to do with it being a BSBuilder battleset.
Re: 2logoption.txt my counter-test was:
"D:\Games\HCCE\Winharp32.exe" -l radar -l missile -b 26 -c "D:\Games\HCCE\AddOnScens\Longer Path Name with Spaces\AAMTEST3.SCq" -d "D:\Games\HCCE\db\commondb.res" -g 001111000
Logging begins. Build Date = Jun 27 2009, Build Time=14:53:54
0 harpoon.c:542 - BattleSet Specified: 26
0 harpoon.c:569 - Scenario Specified: D:\Games\HCCE\AddOnScens\Longer Path Name with Spaces\AAMTEST3.SCq
0 harpoon.c:619 - Database RES Specified: D:\Games\HCCE\db\commondb.res
0 harpoon.c:675 - Game Options Specified: 001111000
0 harpoon.c:694 - done processing arguments. Activating logging for:
0 harpoon.c:716 - radar
0 harpoon.c:720 - missile
So despite the long command line each option was read correctly (I expect command lines up to 255 to work properly and in some cases even longer ones). I ran that test on Vista x64, what OS are you using for these tests?
Re: badlogoptns.txt
From your log file fragment I can see that it choked on the -c (Scenario Specified) option. Could you perhaps try running that command line from a command prompt or by modifying a shortcut to Winharp32.exe? Just wondering if you are having a launcher problem instead of a GE issue (i.e. maybe the launcher isn't spawning the process correctly for you but the GE would interpret them correctly if it were fed in correctly).
Re: greenply.txt
Coolness, I don't think I tried playing as green, yet another good reasons for others to test
It appears the rest of your attempts worked okay. In testing your tests just now I found that you do have to specify the correct battleset for a scenario given on the command line. I did a -b 22 -c AAMTest3.SCq and was dumped into EC2003 GIUK instead of WestPac.
following on from your comments:
re: 2logoption -
In my previous file (concerning starting paused) 2logoptions.txt, at the log segment at the line"0 harpoon.c:675" it seems that the -g options have not been passed correctly into the program. When I run the same command line in the shortcut it runs correctly.
As it works in shosrtcut I don't know if you want to persue this but I've made the following notes if you do>
The fault doesn't happen if scenario by number is chosen. the same fault seems to happen irrespective of battleset, eg I tried GUIK original and GuikHDSIII with same fault.
You asked for my OS, here are the main computer details including OS details:
my Computer:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1 Name : ACER
5.2 Total Memory : 494 Mb
5.3 Free Memory : 222 Mb
5.4 Total Disk : 27.47 Gb
5.5 Free Disk : 8.23 Gb
5.6 System Up Time: 4 days, 23 hours, 52 minutes, 11 seconds
5.7 Processor : Intel® Celeron® CPU 2.80GHz
5.8 Display Mode : 1024 x 768, 16 bit
5.9 Display DPI : 96
5.10 Video Card : Intel® 82852/82855 GM/GME Graphics Controller (driver 6.13.10.3510)
5.11 Printer : Canon iP4600 series (driver 2.20.2.80)
Operating System:
------------------------------------
6.1 Type : Microsoft Windows XP
6.2 Build # : 2600
6.3 Update : Service Pack 2
6.4 Language: English
6.5 Charset : 0
re: cmndatab-
regarding my previous cmndatab.txt, I looked over your comments and tried a different battleset and scenario.
Command Line: "C:\Matrix Games\HCE\Winharp32.exe" -b 22 -c "C:\Matrix Games\HCE\addonscenerios\HFAST.SCm" -d "C:\Matrix
Games\HCE\Backup\200906rel\commondb.res"
So I'm in GUIK EC2003 and used (someones) scenario holdfast. The database is the most recent I have - 28/04/009.
When I copy the simple comand line and transfer it to my winharp shortcut it works, correct database and correct operation.
When I use launcher it works if I Don't specidy the database but when I specify the database (as in the above 'command line') I get the 'program' has encounted an
error and has to close etc.
Again as the GE seems to be OK is it worth persuing?
If I get a problem I can just build the command line in the launcher and transfer it to the shortcut - that has worked every time.
Don.
-
Ha, you must be all asleep at last.
I've attached some log files after testing the new launcher.
In summary some problems:
didn't have much luck trying to link to a commondatabase by name in another folder.
one logging option disregarded.
problems if the command line too long.
the details are at the start of each log file which are named to indicate the general content.
I just have to work out what all the logging report items mean?
Don.
At one time we never slept but you'll catch us napping now and again these days.
Re: cmndatab.txt my counter-test was:
"D:\Games\HCCE\Winharp32.exe" -b 22 -c "D:\Games\HCCE\BARENTS.SCm" -d "D:\Games\HCCE\db\commondb.res"
It ran fine, loaded the HCDB-090427 specified by the command line and opened the specified scenario. Can you perhaps zip and attach all of the files involved in that test. I suspect your trouble may have to do with it being a BSBuilder battleset.
Re: 2logoption.txt my counter-test was:
"D:\Games\HCCE\Winharp32.exe" -l radar -l missile -b 26 -c "D:\Games\HCCE\AddOnScens\Longer Path Name with Spaces\AAMTEST3.SCq" -d "D:\Games\HCCE\db\commondb.res" -g 001111000
Logging begins. Build Date = Jun 27 2009, Build Time=14:53:54
0 harpoon.c:542 - BattleSet Specified: 26
0 harpoon.c:569 - Scenario Specified: D:\Games\HCCE\AddOnScens\Longer Path Name with Spaces\AAMTEST3.SCq
0 harpoon.c:619 - Database RES Specified: D:\Games\HCCE\db\commondb.res
0 harpoon.c:675 - Game Options Specified: 001111000
0 harpoon.c:694 - done processing arguments. Activating logging for:
0 harpoon.c:716 - radar
0 harpoon.c:720 - missile
So despite the long command line each option was read correctly (I expect command lines up to 255 to work properly and in some cases even longer ones). I ran that test on Vista x64, what OS are you using for these tests?
Re: badlogoptns.txt
From your log file fragment I can see that it choked on the -c (Scenario Specified) option. Could you perhaps try running that command line from a command prompt or by modifying a shortcut to Winharp32.exe? Just wondering if you are having a launcher problem instead of a GE issue (i.e. maybe the launcher isn't spawning the process correctly for you but the GE would interpret them correctly if it were fed in correctly).
Re: greenply.txt
Coolness, I don't think I tried playing as green, yet another good reasons for others to test
It appears the rest of your attempts worked okay. In testing your tests just now I found that you do have to specify the correct battleset for a scenario given on the command line. I did a -b 22 -c AAMTest3.SCq and was dumped into EC2003 GIUK instead of WestPac.
One, I have to learn how to use these quotes when replying,
Two, re my previous badlogoptions, Ive run the program from a shortcut and from the launcher useing the same command line and whizzo, the shortcut worked and the launcher passed on a gooped up scenario name. I used the launcher with the scenario by number (a different scenario of course) but all else the same and that worked.
Attached is a zip with the three log files.
I'll work on the other stuff ASAP.
Don.
-
Ha, you must be all asleep at last.
I've attached some log files after testing the new launcher.
In summary some problems:
didn't have much luck trying to link to a commondatabase by name in another folder.
one logging option disregarded.
problems if the command line too long.
the details are at the start of each log file which are named to indicate the general content.
I just have to work out what all the logging report items mean?
Don.
Nice work again! Most of the log options are at least minimally explained at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3574
Performance logging was properly ignored, in release builds it is ignored, when I put up the next beta build that one will work since it will be a debug build.
I followed the link and found what looked like what I would be after " HC_Beta_Tester_Manual.pdf " but that link seemed to go to a blank page, I think I've saved the URL: "http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=718", is there a manual that will let me understand this better and should it be at this URL?
Don.
-
In other words, I have yet to get the launcher or using command lines to work.
Are you sure the launcher is in your HCE directory?
Yes, I unzipped it to my main HCE folder. When I hit the 'Launch GE' button on the launcher, absolutely nothing happens.
Well things happen here too fast for me, but I'll post up my fiiles from testing the older launcher, I had some issues with scenario by name (perhpas that option shouldn't be in?). I'll try the new launcher.
Iv................elps. seems to me a great way of starting non standard games especially from custom battlesets once it is running mickey mouse.
Don Thomas
Ha, you must be all asleep at last.
I've attached some log files after testing the new launcher.
In summary some problems:
didn't have much luck trying to link to a commondatabase by name in another folder.
one logging option disregarded.
problems if the command line too long.
the details are at the start of each log file which are named to indicate the general content.
I just have to work out what all the logging report items mean?
Don.
-
Replenishment at port - when a ship or surface unit is "docked", it is merged with the port or base unit. In the formation editor a surface unit (and for that matter missile barges) can be assigned to a base and serve as some picket or outer defense asset. For a ship to be truly "docked", maybe add another location to the formation editor besides the center of the formation (called docked?). While docked, the ship can be resupplied, maybe even repaired. Should the base be assigned a certain repair capacity (points per day?), or a number of docks? Size of docks (there has been some discussion about the Kitty Hawk going to India, however a limiting factor is the size of drydock available at Cochin)?
In addition, should a docked ship be prohibited from firing weapons or using sensors? I don't think ir may be a good idea to have a SPY-1 running while in the drydock.
This is a little of track, I've sometimes had ships joined to a port in its formation and not been able to 'split' them out. In such case I've launched or used an available aircraft and 'joined' the ship to the aircraft then split it so as to have it finally independant. I assumed that ships weren't meant to be joined to a port (even though it makes sence).
More to the point for here, although getting a bit fiddly, when calculating times for unrep, vertrep, take into account the navy invololved? I was on HMAS Supply in the mid 70's and did an exercise with one of our northern neihbours, their corvette (I think it was a corvette, some twin deisel job) was down a few cylinders and couldn't catch us at a breath taking 12 knots (I think we did unreps at 12 knots, its a while back). They were pretty slow with all the seaman ship stuff involved as well - God knows our couple of guys who went across in the 'chair' were glad that we had the loose end of the rope.
Also, thinking about how big a programing job this looks, could it be tackled by starting with the most immeadiate task which might be resupply of armaments, and once teethed extend it?
Don Thomas
Thinking further:
I'm thinking that running replenishments at sea is a bit like launching aircraft from a carrier.
You need to look at sea room, consider swell and wind then pick a course. You calculate how long you'll be running that course to complete the replenishment(s) and (you'll use a standard steaming speed) therefore the distance. For underway replenishments (unrep) you have to stick to that course and speed until finshed or execute a 'break away'.
You'll have a capacity rate per side for (unrep) that rate independant (pretty well) of whether you are doing one or both sides. The rate varies with various goods. I assume today replenishment ships have on board helos for vertical replenishment (vertrep), each helo having a capacity rate (including turn around time) and I'd also assume that normally the ships are brought relatively close in even if only requiring vertrep so capacity rate wouldn't be greatly dependant on distance apart. (I might be wrong here and verteps might be done over long distances to save steaming time - please correct me here if you know). I'd also assume that today unreps are pretty much only for liquids (fuel). For anything more than mail or personell transfer I'd assume that a number of round trips would normally be required for a meaningful transfer of cargo. A someone has already pointed out a pallet of coke won't last long.
I'd assume few if any combat ships (at least ones that are likely to frequently require replenishments) have helos of sufficient capacity to be of use in vertrep so the calculations could be based on the replenishment ships capability, ie number of helos.
To make things easy we could start with two code procedures, one for unrep on the basis of supplying fuel and one for vertrep on the basis of supply armament.
If these two items were given respective 'scores' for different armament and fuel then once the two procedures were ironed out any other form of goods could be implemented with its own 'score' into the appropriate vertrep or unrep procedure.
If only fuel for steaming was considered (not fuel for aircraft and auxillary equipment) then I guess the unrep is the simpler of the two and the place to start. As with aircraft groups joining, sip units would need to be within a predetermined minimum distance and some time delay for manouvreing alongside included.
As to questions such as what does Harpoon do in the case of torpedo contact, I think it should use the same procedures as for carriers launching aircraft, which I assume is ignore time considerations and get out of there. In the mid 70's I did a short stint on the Australian oiler HMAS Supply and from memory, unless you were transfering personell, you didn't care too much about spilling oil or dropping goods in an emergency breakaway. (ofcourse in exercises you always cleared lines and recovered gear but if a real emergency, which could be mechanical failure, a shit man at the wheel, what ever, you basically let everything go and get out) Supply didn't have much accelleration and until the ships alongside got out of the way couldn't manouvre, but a destroyer or frigate could be let loose and choof of to a 90 degree departure angle in a couple of minutes giving you some sea room. The biggest danger is in fact one ship getting in too close because a venturi effect can set up and suck the two ships together, there was always a watch doing nothing but constantly gauging the separation and the Supply Captain could order a break away and send a ship off at a moments notice if the separation distance came down to a crtical value.
If replenishments are implemented then also more attention could be given to fuel use rates. Ships running flat chat use hugely more fuel than normal cruise.
-
Tony,
If you can use them, I have PDFs of the Harpoon '97 manuals that I recently sent to another group member in response to a request. It's a ZIP file a little over 2 megs if you want it.
Just a thought.
Buddha
Can't hurt even though I think I have all those. Thanks!
Hi guys, Tony in particular I guess,
I've just uplaoaded a file 'harpoon.zip' in hindsight not a good name eh?
Tere is in the zip an explanatory file of mine 'aboutthis.txt', but hought I wouls repeat the basics here. The files are direct from my old computer, I can't find the original CD. The game is a demo with I guess original GUIK battleset only. It is a dos game and when you sart it you get info on how to find out about the full game. It was distributed in australia I think early to mid 1990's. If I find the CD rom I'll get back again with the original stuff.
Don Thomas
using the launcher
in General
Funny that, I was thinking today that an ability to save settings between sessions would be great. I also thought an ability to transfer appropriate settings between the GE and SE (when its done) tabs would be great when writing and testing new scenarios, especially if using custom database.
Anyway Rome wasn't built in a day I guess.
Don