donaldseadog

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 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. GUIK1_aag.zip

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.

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.

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? gunstest.zip

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.

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. ScenByName3LogOptions.zip

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.

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. launchfeedbck.zip

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.

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

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. Ive attached some log file portions with my notes included within each file as a header. generally: IGNORE THIS NOW[battleset by name always gives original GUIK (batleset 1) although the log file has the correct file passed in.] scenario by name caused view of orders file at startup and time rate was always '0' (paused). any ofthe items that are selected from a drop down list must have the "box" ticked after selecting the variable or the selected variable box must be 'clicked' a second time. you see the progress (or lack therof) in the simple command line at the foot of the launcher window. This includes options within the 'game options'. IGNORE THIS NOW [only one logging option may be run. You can select as many as you like but it will only log the first selected. You may select 'all' and this works ok.] Hope this helps. seems to me a great way of starting non standard games especially from custom battlesets once it is running mickey mouse. Don Thomas fedbck.zip

I can always keep helping... Don't forget the launcher in earlier post of this thread, unzip to your HCE directory and run it. It'll build a command line based on your chosen options then click "Launch GE". Make sure you actually get the options you chose, grab the first lines of the log file, rinse and repeat. Hope it OK, I tried the launcher so as to get a debug type readout log (still trying to see what's happening to close range air 2 air guns) and have noticed a couple of things with the launcher: If I use batleset by file name (and choose the HDSU.res file) it doesn't launch but if I use battleset by number (#35 - HDSU.res) it works. In the "game options" I have to select the option value from the pull down window, then rehit the aroow button (like select twice) to register the selction in the "simple text" line (which I assume is the command line being built) In the logging option I get problems if I select more than one individual option. If of significance here are details of my coputer: 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 Don thomas PS This is more fun than playing the game (nearly)

bandits View File A seek and destroy scenario using DB hcda090513 and hunting red and green pirates and drug runners. Green targets must be taken using some form of boarding party (to confirm they are pirates/drugrunners), this can be done with correct helo loadouts and by selecting target and using "intercept" command, you can't "attack" a green target. Submitter donaldseadog Submitted 07/09/2009 Category Caribbean Basin  

The question seems to come up occassionally about refueling air craft (CAP units in particular) from tankers in formation about a base. I've attached a simple saved game tnk2bse1.hpq (from standard wespac battleset) to illustrate what I do, (I think it's pretty sneaky). the game opens with the CAP patrol out from baseAAa with insuffient fuel to get home. In formation patrol 140 nm away is a tanker AA01. "join" the base and the CAP patrol , 'move' the tanker from the bae to the fighter group and execute the "join". use 'alt' R to commence refuelling and wait for the request to split the tanker then send it home. set the CAP groups speed to send it back to its patrol point. Its not automatic but not actually very fiddly, set it up when the CAP requests coming home at Bingo fuel. Set a course to the refuel point, set loiter speed and use F10 to produce a staff reminder that you are in position to refuel, execute the new course - you'll get your reminder when the CAP is in position. If you have no tankers in the sky at that time you loose a group so keep an eye on that eh! If you bring your CAP group into more or less where the tanker is (instead of 140nm away in this test) then it really is working fairly realisstically, ofcourse you can cheat if you so wish - who's to know. The simple scenario is attached too incase you'd like to fiddle abit. Don. tnk2bse.zip

I figured it was probably afew doing heaps of work.. Any way I note Tony tried guns and they operated , I still wonder if they has a range of less than 1 mile.? I've attached a zip with a small battleset, scenario and saved game. the game (playing blue) starts with two dog fights occuring, one between two pairs of Bf 109 B2s and the other a pair of 109 F4s. The B2s never fire but stick to each other like the proverbial. The F4s soon start shredding each other. I should have done something like this in at the start to illustrate what I'd seen (I'll know next time). I understand that things are always changing (my first harpoon was a dos game with only the original G UIK battleset, a demo version at that - boy how things have changed) and little things can be important and easily missed in what must be a huge monster of a program. I probably make a 'chat', being upside down and other side of the globe (Australia) my time tables are a bit out, but I'll keep an eye out for things I might be able to do like this. Don. airtoairww.zip

I've had another fiddle and have revised my earlier findings. Its doesn't seem to matter which planes are in control of AI it is a plane by plane (more exactly a gun by gun) issue. It isn't a matter of allied vs axis planes. What I now find I find very interesting: If you modify in PE the range of the guns then once it's air range is 1 mile or over it conducts proper air to air combat, below this it appears to be in dog fight (if you can assign it a target it can get to) but never fires, my assumtion is that it never gets to less than one mile range. My question then is this 'can the GE only assign one plane group (or unit) to one exact location is is the size of that location 1 mile?' If so that is the problem I'd say. It may also relate the something else I've seen, if you join two (or more) air units into a common air group, and they have short range air to ground weapons, the group will some times manouvre around its target but never get any unit close enough to fire. Maybe I should do a saved game to illustrate this, it'd be quite simple I think. Hoping all this leads to something worth while, I'm concerned its taking up time for those who have (i'd assume) plenty of work already. Don.

Hi Mack, I'd be interested to know how you find it, especially some of the data base additions like the fast FARP and the 'diggers' armament carried by hercs. I've tried to simulate some of the things I've seen/ heard of/ read about in these sort of operations out back (Australian interiour). I also wanted a few scenarious that try to keep away from air power. Don.

That's very telling. We may have a code issue here. Try and get a savegame if possible. Didn´t notice such a Problem while creating the basic models for my HC-35to50-DB, so one of the newer changes in code might cause the trouble? I´ve created the Guns as Gun Payload..... But i didn´t check anything the last months due to too much work .... I don't have a saved game, I'll look athat but will need to provide battleset, scenario and game (and modified database see below). I've made a battleset (as DBWW won't work on standard battlesets, correct?) and a simple scenario with a germ carrier in the english channel. On board (and set in CAP formation) are fighters from germany, japan and USA and some recon planes. From London I have brit, US, japanese and german fighters and light fast bombers (with AA). I've also modified a sopy of the data base to use german guns on one UK plane and a copy of a german gun with attributes changed to look like a UK gun. I find that only planes with german guns (or copies of german guns) conduct proper Air to air combat (actually fire). I also tried changing some of the UK guns to look like german guns but they didn't seem to work. I'm assuming there are some attributes of the 'weapons' that don't show up in the normal PE editor editing window but this seems unlikely? It could be me! In any case it doesn't seem to be who is playing but what guns (cannons) are fitted. Also, planes seem to think they have an AA range of 3 miles (no matter what their guns) and if ordered to engage a plane at less than this they ask for permission to fire guns only but do not alter thier "course" nor record in their info window the target and if more than the actual gun range just keep plodding on. If they have german guns they will fire in self defence or if the enemy gets within range. Planes ordered to attack outside the 3 mile range (if they have an exact fix) will behave as if in a dog fight whether or not they have operating (ie german or other) guns. I'll try to get something saved to illustrate this but perhaps "those who look at code" might think of something from this (perplexing) summary. Don Thomas

File Name: Australia battleset File Submitter: donaldseadog File Submitted: 23 Jun 2009 File Updated: 23 Feb 2011 File Category: BattleSets DB Used: HCDB-100930 Authors: don thomas A battleset based on continental Australia Eight scenarios of differing character, some heavily air craft dependant, some not. This new version 110222 fixes clerical and platform errors, provides better descriptions and removes undesirable SAM barges. The embedded scenarios use HCDB-100930 (official HCE database) or newer. Don Click here to download this file

I noticed this in a recent test scenario. Are the Red aircraft attacking air-to-air? yes they are. anything with more than a pop gun shoots down spitfires and mustangs by the hand ful. I'll have a closer look, I'll try using different planes including german etc planes with blue side and see what I can find. Don.

Hi all, re the latest couple of HCWW data bases (090605 &090618). I like the idea of playing back in WW2 with out all them there modern stuff, but I can't get my blue pilots to fire their guns at other planes. I've even sicked them onto planes with no armament, but they just fly around them looking stupid. Any one else having this happen.? Don Thomas [CV32: Edited]

Hi guys, having spent quite some time, like all of you it seems, playing with refuelling scenarios etc I think it is cheating to be able to look at the code, no wonder the group is called "staff pukes" (only joking). Two traps not mentioned here that I sometimes forget is that if your tanker has less range than the recipient, you some times run the tanker dry on the way home (oops), the other, when ferrying over a long distance if the group includes a tanker at take off, refuelling may occur about 30 secs after group formation (takeoff completed) and thereby having no effect (otherthan having to bring every one back and refuel on land). You wouldn't want it all to be too easy though, would you? Don.