HUD3

Weird...all I did was add a US ammo depot (didn't want to mess with a generic one) to the airfield installation and when I open up the scenario editor, it tells me I have enough for 82 sorties with the ATA loadout for the Canadian F-18s. \ Hmmm...I did not rebuild the scenario for the Jan. 2011 version of the HUD3 until I read your message...when I did so, it changed the number of sorties available to 90. (In fact, I could not run the scenario until I used the rebuild functions. I will have to keep that in mind when I write other scenarios.) And then when I did run it, it says I have 98 sorties available. Go figure. Weird. IIRC this sortie rate mismatch is a known ANW bug. The game engine and the scenario editor calculate differently. Not nice, but not game killing, either. For me, the question remains, why I got unlimited loadouts. I´ll play the scen today and look once more at it, maybe I forgot to check the aircraft logistics on box. Regards, Ralf Gents, There's actually not a bug here. More than two years ago there was and I had AGSI fix it for me. The difference in the available loadouts between the Scenario Editor and the game versions is easily explained. In the Editor the available weapons do not reduce when you load aircraft. If there's enough weapons for 90 loadouts even if you load 90 aircraft there's still 90 loadouts available. Once you open that example in the game you'll see 180 loadouts. That's 90 in the magazine and 90 on the aircraft... If a player decided to change say, 30 of the 90 aircraft. The weapons aren't expended, they are transferred back to the magazine. So after changing the loadout, the magazine would display 120 of the loadout as available. Now I know I spend tooooo much time working on this game... Cheers Darren

Just a quick note on the logistics function. Apologies to those aware of this and I'm repeating it. When you complete a scenario (design stage) create a scenario *.sem file, by using the following command. EDIT -> Scenario Rebuild -> Export All Unit Weapon Edits. This creates a small file that, allows for the scenario to be rebuilt with all Mount and Magazine weapon record edits saved. For example if you decided to change the version of Harpoons loaded in the Mk141 from RGM-84D - Harpoon IC (4/4) - (DEFAULT) to RGM-84G - Harpoon IG (4/4), without making a, "scenario_file_name.sem" file, when a player or designer for that matter rebuilds the scenario. The modification made will revert to the default load. The same issue applies to Magazine edits such as the airbase magazines mentioned above. Airbase Magazines - An explanation. Named country Airbase magazines should contain weapons that, allow for loading aircraft specific to that nation to be loaded, although there may be a need to make modifications based on the year the scenario is designed for. The General Munitions (65k) magazine should cover every almost every weapon in the HUD3 and is probably best used where a mix of aircraft from various nationalities are included in a scenario. Cheers Darren

Hyuga has been added.

Don, What date do you have on the Tutorial file that gives you the inadequate runway notification? I've just opened it here and can't see the issue, not in Tutorial 6 Air operations anyway. The Good Guys base has a, "Very Large Runway" and they don't come any larger than that. Aircraft at the base include a single E-3 Sentry and 4 x F-16A's (they don't need such a large runway. The hangar the Sentry is housed in is too small, but the runway isn't and it should launch, I just did... Regardless I found a few unrelated minor edits the Tutorial requires. Don, feel free to post your issues here or contact me directly via: dbuckley@advancedgaming.biz Cheers Darren

Steven, Does the weapon look like this: AGM-154A - JSOW(HE Clust.)? Remove the Bearing Only Launch flag from the weapon like I just have and it might just work... ;-) Cheers Darren PS: If you keep this up I'll have to add you to the HUD3 credits. Feel like joining the team?

OK really having issues. Going to have to start over. I need help opening up the DB (HUD3), changing a few of the platforms and then exporting it. I thought I was doing the same thing as in HCE but I keeping getting errors so any help would be greatly appreciated. Steven, You may be running into two separate issues. 1.> On your first attempt to import the database you may find the RE won't import the database files. You will need to open the database using the Game Editor and then save the database. You don't need to modify anything, simply open, save annexes and exit. 2.> I normally place a copy of the database.dll file in each database folder, along with the copy of the RE that applies to that database. Feel free to contact me if you have any further issues. Cheers Darren

Tony, Don't knock yourself out trying to get this done quickly. I'm just happy we can bring DBComp up to the current ANW Database format. Thanks for your efforts Tony, I appreciate them greatly. Cheers Darren

Libya produces approximately 2% of the planet's oil production. The oil price increase might just be described as gouging. Welcome to my world with the refugees, enjoy them as they deconstruct your society and culture. It's a lot of fun to watch... Cheers

Anyone unaware might like to check this article in wikipedia out. It's the, "How to fight in Libya Handbook" courtesy of the 2nd AIF's 6th Division... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass That's how you do it. Cheers Darren

Has anyone at the UN read the charter that governs the organisation? Chapter I Article 2, clause 7 of this chapter re-emphasises the fact that only the UN Security Council has the power to force any country to do anything by stating that "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." (Only the Security Council can institute Chapter VII enforcement measures.) Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and non-military action to "restore international peace and security". The Chinese are right, this a domestic dispute within Libya. There is no need to, "restore international peace and security". Most of us live in somewhat functioning democracies. If you awoke tomorrow to armed "rebels" on the street outside your house, would you condemn the army/police for restoring order? We know NOTHING about these "rebels" except for one thing. They really need air support!! Why are we in the, "west" so simple minded that we will rush to aid a "group" we know next to nothing about, especially their plan for the future of their country. How would people feel if we intervened, helped the rebels win and Gaddafi was replaced with a religious based ruling elite? That's called back to square one or square -1. If people want to kill each other in their own country, that's their business. In Australia at least, we're smart enough to never have given "civil" war even a second's consideration. Canada falls into our category, most of the rest of the forum's members can't claim that one. I say we stay out and ignore the mess that isn't ours. I'm reminded of a sign we had in a laboratory I worked in many years ago. "Clean up after yourself, your Mother doesn't work here." Cheers Darren

Libya has declared a cease fire, supposedly due to it being a member of the UN and having to abide by its decisions! Full report here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03...?section=justin Cheers Darren

Ummm, sorry, that's wrong. The circumference of a circle is given by 2 x pi x the radius, no squaring involved. This does not, however, change the general thrust of your argument. Thanks for the correction Warhorse, I suppose somebody with no high school math should be careful before he starts giving lectures! Cheers Darren

If I am standing a foot in front of you and take one step to the right, I expect you can tell I moved right away. But if I am standing a kilometer away and I take the same step to the right, its probably more difficult for you to tell. But Darren's explanation works too. Brad, Your is easier to understand. I used that on the AGSI coders in relation to making the ANW maps report the correct distances as Latitude increases. If you created a map before the fix, you would find a map from 0 - 90N would display the same linear distance at the Equator as it would at the Pole. I've even gone as far as building a spreadsheet that calculates the "Latitude offsets" for creating Installations. Unfortunately Harpoon is more like a devotion than a game to this old warhorse. Repeated apologies for explaining stuff to the N-th degree. Cheers

Here's an easier way of understanding the concept (I hope) The Length of an Arc is equal to the degree change/360 x the circumference of the circle. (This is simplified for illustration). A Circle's circumference is given by 2 x Pi x The square of the radius. At 2nm the circle's circumference is equal to - 2 x 3.1415 x 4 or 25.13nm At 20nm the circle's circumference is equal to - 2 x 3.1415 x 400 or 2513.27nm Let's assume the sub contacts are both travelling at 5kts The Arc Lengths for the contacts are given by: 2nm Contact: 5/360 x 25.13 = 0.3490nm & 20nm Contact: 5/360 x 2513.27 = 34.91nm The contacts have to individually travel a distance of either 0.3490nm/698yards (2nm Contact) or 34.91nm/69820yards (20nm contact) to cover the 5 degree bearing change. At 5kts (10,000yards/hr) the subs cover 166.7yards/minute or 500yards per 3 minute turn. Therefore the 2nm distant target takes, 1.396 Tactical turns (4.19 minutes) to cover 5 degrees of bearing change, while the 20nm distant target requires 139.64 tactical turns (almost 7 hours) to undergo a 5 degree bearing change. In short the 2nm contact has a bearing rate change of 1.193 degrees a minute and the 20nm contact has a bearing change of 0.0119 degrees a minute. I hope that's a little clearer than mud? Cheers Darren

Correct or anything with an emitting radar, even another submarine if within range. Yes it does as a "bonus" modifier. Both Passive Sonar and ESM provide bearing to target only. By having an extra set of bearing figures from an ESM contact as well as the bearing produced by the passive sonar fix, you receive an added 20% to your classification attempt. In short you know what it sounds like and what types of radar it's carrying. Although it may not seem logical, it really is. At long ranges 20nm+ the bearing rate changes so slowly the contact can afford to be lost for a greater period of time before the TMA solution needs to be restarted. If a contact is at very short range, the bearing rate can change very quickly. The key factor is distance to target. The closer a target the faster the rate of bearing change relative to a more distant target is. Cheers Darren

Here's another link to the Iranian backed supply run. http://idfspokesperson.com/2011/03/16/list...n-the-victoria/ The Iranian "supply ship" is the 431 Kharg AOR. She's a modified "Ol" - Olwen Class AO tanker, modified to allow the carriage of just over 1000tons of cargo. This is so blatant the Iranian's may as well have dumped the lot on the Gaza Strip... Cheers Darren

More detail would be appreciated, zip a saved game and attach it here with instructions would really help everyone else 'see what you see'. Last week I was working with HUD3 and had exact detections of a frigate using my CG-47 class cruiser's radar. Thank you OK. Im guessing that the radar just hasnt fully ID the contact. The game is working so maybe I should ask for a primer on RADAR basics. An enemy unit was finally ID and then all hell broke loose. In HCE an AWACS or Hawkeye would have the ship located and ID much sooner so can I assume that Harpoon 3 could be modeled more realistically? Thanks Tony. All you folks here as well as the Harpoon folks put out one hell of a product. You should look for a cure for cancer. Tony or all those interrested...Here is my saved game. I have Growlers and Hawkeyes all in the air and they don't seem to be ID the contacts 100% Friendlies have active sensors and I shift them back and forth to no IMMEDIATE avail. It seems to take time for the sensors to get them but eventually they will. So again a Ops primer for this old hole snipe would be appreciated. And I sent the .SAV file so I wasnt sure if that was correct so let me know. Thanks. Steven, I've grabbed your saved game and will take a look later today. I'm about to head out for a while and won't be able to start looking into this for a few hours. From what you're describing it sounds like you've run into some jamming. That's just a guess without looking at your save. Jamming can really knock your radar about and reduce both range and detection capability. Answer shortly. Darren Ok, This had me striding down one path until the error jumped out and kicked me... The EA-18G Growler is designed to carry the AN/APG-79 AESA LD/SD(Radar) AND the AN/APG-79 AESA SS/TF (Surface Search/Terrain Following) (Radar). Of course this little black duck forgot to add the SS/TF version of the radar system... Now fixed along with any other aircraft with "split" radars that were missing components. I've included a screen capture showing the single radar version and hence why you're Growlers were having trouble gaining an ID on the "mystery" ship. Although the APG-79, is listed as a SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) system, there's no confirmation on the ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar) that would grant "Classification" ability to the system. Since SAR radars are by default modelled in ANW, I've added the "classification" ability to the APG-79. Cheers Darren

Forget the E-3 as the platform doing the real number crunching here. The E-8C JSTARS is the platform of choice for that kind of work. The Integrated Data Management system allows the AH-64 and OH-58 teams to deal with this type of tactic. Netcentric warfare.

Yep. Brad, Thanks for moving the post to the correct "slot". The GPS must have been on the blink!

Country: Libya 2010 Air Assets: Air Force 18,000 personnel Flying hours 85 hrs/year FORCES BY ROLE & EQUIPMENT BY TYPE (many non-operational, many ac in store) AIRCRAFT 590 combat capable BMR (6): 1 sqn with: 6 Tu-22B Blinder-A FTR (200): 9+ sqn with: 15 Mirage F-1ED 65 MiG-25P/PB/PDS/M Foxbat-A/B/D/E (storage) 75 MiG-23ML/MS Flogger-B 45 MiG-21bis Fishbed-N MiG-25U Foxbat FGA 134: 7 sqn with: 11 Su-24MK Fencer-D 14 Mirage F-1AD 40 MiG-23BN Flogger-H 45 Su-22M-2 Fitter-J 8 Su-22UM-3K Fitter-G MiG-23UB Flogger-C* 16 Soko J-21E Jastreb (Light Ground Attack) Recce 2 sqn with: 30 MiG-25R/RE Foxbat-B/D Mirage 5DP30* TKR 6: 4 Ilyushin Il-78 Midas 2 KC-130H TPT 85+: 7 sqn with: 2 Antonov An-124 Condor 15 Il-76MD Candid-B 1 An-72P Coaler 2 An-74TK Coaler 8 An-32 Cline 18 An-26 Curl 15 C-130H Hercules 2 L-100-20 Hercules 3 L-100-30 Hercules 16 G-222 15 Let L-410UVP Turbolet 1 Boeing 707-320 1 Gulfstream II 2 Dassault Falcon 50 TRG 236: Trg sqns with: 1 Tu-22U Blinder-D 70 Soko G-2AE Galeb 115 Aero L-39ZO Albatros 15 MiG-23UB Flogger-Cr* 3 MiG-25U Foxbat* 4 Mirage 5DP30* 6 Mirage F-1BD* 20 Aermacchi SF-260WL Warrior PZL Mi-2 Hoplite HELICOPTERS hel sqns with: ATK 44: 32 Mi-24DHind-D 12 Mi-35 Hind-F SPT 87: 4 CH-47C Chinook (hy) 2 Bell 212 Twin Huey 35 Mi-17 (Mi-8MT) Hip-H/Mi-8 Hip-C (med) 30 PZL Mi-2 Hoplite UTL 16: 5 AB-206 (Bell 206) Jet Ranger (lt) 11 SA-316 Alouette III (lt) MISSILES: ASM AS-11 Kilter AS-7 Kerry AS-9 Kyle AT-2 Swatter ARM AS-11 Kilter AAM AA-2 Atoll AA-6 Acrid AA-7 Apex AA-8 Aphid R-550 Magic R530 Ordered (2010) 12 Sukhoi Su-35 4 Su-30MK2 Flanker-C 12 MiG-29SMT Fulcrum-C 14 Rafale 6 Yak-130 Mitten Air Defence Command Senezh AD comd and control system FORCES BY ROLE AD 5 Regions with: 3 AD bde each with: 20–24 SA-6 Gainful/SA-8 Gecko 2–3 AD bde each with: 12 SA-3 Goa 5–6 AD bde each with: 18 SA-2 Guideline 4 AD bde with: SA-5A Gammon (each: 1 radar coy, 2 AD bn with 6 launcher, 4+ ADA bn with guns) EQUIPMENT BY TYPE SAM 216+: SP 72 SA-6 Gainful/SA-8 Gecko (216–432 eff.) TOWED 144: 108 SA-2 Guideline STATIC SA-5A Gammon; 36 SA-3 Goa GUNS some Army Aviation HELICOPTERS 63: 35 SA-342L Gazelle 12 CH-47C Chinook 11 SA-316 Alouette III 5 AB-206A Jet Ranger AD • SAM • SP 424+: 24 Crotale (quad) 400 SA-7 Grail SA-13 Gopher SA-9 Gaskin GUNS 490 SP 250: 23mm ZSU-23-4 TOWED 240: 14.5mm 100 ZPU-2 30mm M-53/59 40mm 50 L/70 57mm 90 S-60 RADAR: LAND RASIT (veh, arty) TACTICAL MSL: SSM 45 FROG-7

Darren, Thanks. I look forward to seeing the new database when it is released. If I can think of any other suggestions, I will add them in this thread. (Actually, anyone else who wants to use the thread for that purpose is welcome to do so, too.) (By the way, I have sometimes half-seriously suggested adding a sea monster platform to the database--hey, Godzilla has sunk more shipping than most countries. It is totally ridiculous, of course, but you could actually put together some good scenarios with Godzilla/It Came From Beneath the Sea/Behemoth as the "bad guy." What do you think?) Mark I have official stats for Godzilla...

More detail would be appreciated, zip a saved game and attach it here with instructions would really help everyone else 'see what you see'. Last week I was working with HUD3 and had exact detections of a frigate using my CG-47 class cruiser's radar. Thank you OK. Im guessing that the radar just hasnt fully ID the contact. The game is working so maybe I should ask for a primer on RADAR basics. An enemy unit was finally ID and then all hell broke loose. In HCE an AWACS or Hawkeye would have the ship located and ID much sooner so can I assume that Harpoon 3 could be modeled more realistically? Thanks Tony. All you folks here as well as the Harpoon folks put out one hell of a product. You should look for a cure for cancer. Tony or all those interrested...Here is my saved game. I have Growlers and Hawkeyes all in the air and they don't seem to be ID the contacts 100% Friendlies have active sensors and I shift them back and forth to no IMMEDIATE avail. It seems to take time for the sensors to get them but eventually they will. So again a Ops primer for this old hole snipe would be appreciated. And I sent the .SAV file so I wasnt sure if that was correct so let me know. Thanks. Steven, I've grabbed your saved game and will take a look later today. I'm about to head out for a while and won't be able to start looking into this for a few hours. From what you're describing it sounds like you've run into some jamming. That's just a guess without looking at your save. Jamming can really knock your radar about and reduce both range and detection capability. Answer shortly. Darren

Folks, I'll be attending the Australian National Archives shortly to review various RAN vessels "Proceedings Logs". These logs contain information regarding RAS evolutions conducted by the RAN's ships and record both time required and weapons transferred. I'll get things as realistic as possible as fast as possible. Cheers Darren

Cheers Darren

G'day Mark, Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I'll try to answer your questions as I have time. Things are rather hectic for me right now, so I'll apologise in advance. Thanks for trying things out in ANW and using the HUD3. You'll have a lot more new "toys" shortly as I've been working on further updates and adding platforms to the DB. SAMs Roland or any other SAM for that matter will have to deal with a mix of variables. - Guidance systems/Target Cross Section: Depending on the system used and the appropriate cross section of the intended target, the range of a SAM will differ from the range given in the database display. The ranges you'll see in the HUD3 represent the maximum range under ideal conditions. Imagine a RGM-109 Tomahawk with a Diameter of 20.4 in (0.52 m) is flying directly at the SAM launcher, as against the same Tomahawk flying perpendicular to the launcher and exposing the full length of the missile of some 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m). Since the diameter or in terms of the length the height of the missile is the same, we have a target some 10 times the size in terms of radar reflectivity. - Launcher Siting: Taking the example above into account, siting your SAM launchers is a key factor in determining their capability and worth as defensive weapons. Although you want to avoid creating "crossing targets" for your SAMs, you can afford to do this with inbounds like Tomahawk since their speed is low enough to avoid the crossing target penalty. A "Crossing Target" is any aircraft or missile that, has a speed in excess of 1300kts. The Roland system was designed primarily to engage targets such as battlefield helicopters (Mi-24 Hind) and ground attack aircraft (Su-25). Therefore in my attempts to model "reality" in ANW & the HUD3, it's not a really an effective system against very small or stealthy targets (your Tomahawks). I don't recommend you attach/group your SAM or AAA facilities with a base you create. I always separate them and have for my reconstructions of the original Harpoon 2 scenarios. There are two reasons for this, firstly it allows for ease of setting sensor variances. By selecting the AAA or SAM site and hitting the F9 - Sensor hotkey you can set each facility possessing a radar to switch on and off with a given variability. This is very important in terms of providing protection against incoming anti-radiation missiles. I witnessed inbound "Wild Weasel" aircraft having to return to base when the SAM site switches off and the Weasels hit bingo fuel and are forced to RTB. Secondly, using the Home key - Auto Detect hotkey the player or AO (Artificial Opponent, there's no intelligence in the computer side, it simply reacts to triggers and sensor data it gains.) will be required to locate the AAA site or SAM launcher to enable an attack to be launched. This allows for mobile sites to be simulated (they've moved since the last recon mission) and in the case of shoulder launched SAMs, they should always be set to non-autodetect, since the chance of a single or two soldiers hiding behind a tree being known to the other side unless under direct observation is low. The Venezuelans actually have the SA-15 9M331 Tor (approx 26 units) so no problem there Mark, the RBS-70 & Mistral have also been added to the Venezuelan country file in the HUD3. I will need to add the Barak Mk.3 Rafael ADAMS (Air Defence Advanced Mobile Systems) SAMs and several ground based radar systems to the database and subsequently the relevant country entries. The Venezuelan air force needs to be "filled out" with further new aircraft requiring addition to the HUD3. Mark, I'll check through your other posts and provide my views or answers to your other questions. Cheers Darren