Jump to content

Joe K

Members
  • Posts

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Joe K's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Which? That you've convinced yourself of the futility of helping us help you, by giving us something to work with (e.g. the 'metrics')? Or, that you haven't put much effort into helping us help you, by giving us something to work with (e.g. the 'metrics')? Either way, I invite you (ask you, implore you) to prove me wrong. Please. Really. I was referring to your assertion that I have not put any effort into addressing these problems. I don't don't know what additional "proof" of this would be any more satisfactory to you... as you seem to have your opinion well-entrenched. How many times have you done that, exactly? Submitted a test scenario or a savegame? Tried using the logging feature? Used the GE specifically built for you? If the answer is not 'every single time I've been asked', then please don't bother raising the issue at all. You're wasting our time. Test scenarios: Unknown overall, but none since I've been using the HCE Demo (as you may recall, there is no Scenario Editor to use with the Demo). Saved games: Five that I recall off-hand. All blown off as not showing the respective problem. Logging feature: I assume you refer to logging features that are available through the launcher only? In such case, none - as we don't have the launcher set up and working yet. And this is only a recent "request" of yours anyway. Why ask for further game-saves when past ones all have reportedly failed. (You're wasting my time in that case). When the questions are premised on an assertion that the AI is stacked against you, a la: JoeK: "And is there any way to make the player's auto-defenses work comparably to the AI's defenses?" That premise sounds awfully familiar to me and is therefore classified as 'old tack', imho. That is colored by your own presumptions, and was not intended to be a claim of the AI being stacked against the player (or me?). From my view, that was an entirely legitimate question. JoeK, let's get something clear, I mean, crystal clear. This is where HCE development happens. Here, at HarpGamer. If a forum member reports a bug or makes an allegation that the game is not working as he thinks it should, or his question is premised on something alleged as 'abnormal', then we like to investigate that issue. It's part of what we do. And we invite (need) player participation in reporting bugs or flaws and we really like to elicit their assistance in getting to the bottom of it. Frankly, we could use the help, and it makes the process easier for everyone. In many cases, in fact, its impossible to figure out if a real issue even exists without the test scenario or savegame. We really don't have the time or inclination to be chasing our tails. I am sorry you feel that way, but in my defense, as soon as it became apparent (to me anyway) that certain anomalies were limitied to my machine, I did stop pursuing those, did I not? If you choose to lump all of my inquiries into that category, well, that's your problem... and so nothing much that I can do about it. I am sorry that I (we) have not had the time (to date) to fully respond to all the requests that you guys have made. But rest assured, we have been trying, as time permits. So far, we've managed to: - Resurrect two other test computers and get the HCE Demo 050 up and running on them, and a copy of his HUE version of HCE up and running on one of them. - We have spent a lot of time trying to get a test scenario in HUE that showed any of the anomalies. So far, no joy at all. - We have spent a considerable amount of time trying to get my game-saves on the two HCE 050 Demo versions to exhibit any of the problems that they show on my machine, and have seen only hints of them, but totally unrepeatable. - I put in six or seven hours one day (to the detriment of some other projects) in trying to meet your demand to "prove" the situations that I observed re the THB scenario, apparently unsucessfully. - I have been trying to perform the THB tests that VitP requested. but with a number of problems. - We have been trying to get the launcher up and running on at least one of the machines with the HCE Demo, but ran into several snags - unfortunately including some "User Error". In any case, we still haven't gotten it to start up right. So, your assertions that I'm not willing to do the legwork are grossly unfair, to say the least. I'm beginning to understand loud and clear why my "imaginary friend" became so upset... and so I will comply with your request for a full stop. Everything stops right here and now.
  2. I go back to an issue report you posted, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=197 where you provided no metrics when given a GE built just to look at your issue. You said you ran through 12 times before posting the issue, how about running it twelve times again with the logging and see what results you get and whether they make sense? I fully expect you are seeing the game working correctly in that issue report, not some your computer only strangeness (I still don't buy the argument that your computer is special in that way). Provide the logs and the summary and I bet you'll convince yourself that the right number of F-15s are being downed. 12 plays is 24 x F-15. You see from the logging that the final hit chance is 80%, that means 19-20 shoot downs of the 24 planes if you hit exactly 80%, more likely even over 12 runs you won't be normalized right at 80%, consider 17 shot down at 70% (lucky rolls for F-15) and 21-22 at 90% (poor rolls for F-15). Then hopefully you can mark the issue as working as intended or if you still don't think it is make a case for why. (to me these expected results mesh perfectly with your stated results "Near 100% hit rate for AI's AAMs") This is what we're saying, you have the ability to provide metrics and specifics and saves and scens but you are not. It is even more puzzling when you are handed the tools on a silver platter and don't use them to provide the metrics that are needed. I am sorry. Between some SNAFUs with the launcher and GE 052 downloads, and some other issues yet to be resolved, I have not even gotten to try that case yet. And I (we) still haven't gotten the launcher figured out and working yet, albeit our time has been spent mostly with the other issues. Regarding the platform-specific theory, it's interesting because early on you guys were saying that it was my machine that was screwed up - and I was doubting that... Now that I'm seeing evidence that it is machine-specific, you guys are saying that it's not. Very interesting... BTW, In case you missed any of it, these are the reasons for my current opinions of the matter: 1. Few other people have reported seeing the anomalies - at least not to the extent that I see them. 2. You have said that none of my submitted game-saves have exhibited the reported problems when run on other machines. I have more or less confirmed this when running them on our two other machines - although they do hint of some of the behaviors, yet certainly not repeatably as they do on my primary machine. When I re-run them on my machine, they again demonstrate the problems repeatably (albeit, when given enough time and pre-work). 3. We have not been able to get any hint of the problems on the HUE version (which is on my "imaginary friend's" machine, along with one of the other two copies of Demo 050), either when running the relevent scenarios or when trying to create test scenarios that have only a few groups involved - even though they are the same platform types (I think - although the database might be different) as the ones involved in the problems in the game-saves. 4. There is some rather perplexing behavior of the VM manager on my machine, which is a bit suspicious in light of the nature and onset of the anomalies in the HCE Demo. Unfortunately, I have no more idea how to confirm any cause-and-effect connection than I have about why the VM Manager is so active in the first place. So this remains just a nagging suspicion, that tends to support the machine-specific view. Bottom line is that, as far as I know, most of these anomalies in HCE (well, except maybe for the question about the relative level of response of the AI's and player's automatic missile defenses) manifest only on my primary PC - or at least are far more regular occurances there. That's the basis for my current opinion, FWIW... and why I have not pursued the anomalies any further, nor requested any further investigation, pending emergence of any new evidence to the contrary.
  3. If you have convinced yourself of that (though I must admit, I am not sure how, since you haven't given much effort at all in trying to help us help you by producing either test scenarios or savegames), That statement is totally false. As far as game saves, every game save that I have submitted over the past few years that demonstrated an issue repeatably here has been met with the claim that it works normally when played "anywhere else". To me, repeating such efforts is futile. I believe I already said that (a few times). I don't see how repeating the same open ended questions - without giving folks the ways and means of being able to help you in any effective fashion - is a different tack. But we're apparently done here, so never mind. First off, the new-tack questions are not "the same". Nor are they requests for investigations (unfounded opinions to the contrary notwithstanding). Is it unreasonable for me to ask questions about how to do something, or why something behaves as it does, without having to provide some sort of extensive documentation? I mean, yeah, if it turns out to be something truly abnormal that has to be looked into... but from my perspective, that's generally not the case - especially not at the outset.
  4. JoeK, stop and think for a second. No one would be asking you to produce test scenarios or savegames if what you were reporting was normal or expected behavior. I would have thought (hoped) that was painfully clear by now. It also has been painfully clear that it is futile to submit saved games when they reportedly don't reproduce their symptoms elsewhere, nor to continue trying to create test scenarios (on the HUE version, I assume) since we can't invoke the effect(s) in question there (so far, at least). That's why I was attempting a different tack, in hopes of finding out which peculiarities might not be limited to my own installation, because clearly there is no point in wasting time on those that are (supposedly) only local manifestations. Of course, if the presumption is that the entire litany of puzzling effects and behaviors all are local issues (and not due to any improper settings or "user error"), then the entire situation is moot... and perhaps I really should stop playing the game. (Is there a Harpooner's Anonymous or some such... to help me break the addiction?)
  5. Give us some test scenarios to prove you can duplicate what none of us have seen in the game. If you can't do that because you're still playing the demo, then, maybe you should invest in the game a little, or maybe think about where the real issues are. Document what happens, compare the classes that are firing said ordnance, and go from there; i.e. a VLS Tico is going to fire more missiles than a Perry, and a Kirov can manage more than a Kiev. Posting paragraphs like the quoted one above does *nothing* to help anyone, least of all you. Why is it that nobody will simply answer the questions? That is, is it normal behavior? And is there any way to make the player's auto-defenses work comparably to the AI's defenses? If this is not normal game behavior, then one of two things must account for it: 1. I am missing some setting that's needed to make this work as expected, or 2. It is yet another manifestation of things that foul up locally only. The "solution" for case 1 above is self-explanatory, while case 2 is no longer worth pursuing. On the other hand, if this is normal game behavior, then one of two things must be going on: 1. My expectations are incorrect (for reasons that remain unexplained), or 2. Something isn't working realistically. Again, the "solution" for the first case here is self-explanatory (for instance, someone could explain the error of my expectations). The second case here is the only one of the cases which warrants any investigative efforts. That's why I wanted first to find out which of the cases is true - because only one case of the four warrants any investigative efforts. BTW, in regards to the question of different platforms, I guess I didn't state clearly that in some cases I have compared the behavior of the same group or ship from the player's side and from the AI's side, with the results materially as described, depending on which side the group is being played. In other words, I don't see any indication that it is a platform-related effect - at least to the best of my ability to achieve an apples-to-apples comparison, as it often isn't easy to induce directly-comparable behavior on the AI side. Further, these particular observations have been pretty consistent here since at least HCG, if not before... so I seriously doubt that it is just due to some quirk of the Demo version.
  6. The thing that puzzles the begeebies out of me is why platforms on the AI side fire so much more defensive stuff than when they are on the player's side. Since both are "automatic" responses, I figured there might be some sort of settings that would bring the two responses to a more similar level. I run the default settings in these cases, but my overall observations indicate that the player's side normally fires only 1-2 SAMs at each incoming missile (per volley), while the AI side fires more on the order of 5-10 SAMs per incoming missile (per volley), and the AI side fires more volleys per attack than does the player's side... all of which is "bad" in the sense that the Player's missiles don't have much chance of getting through, but "good" in the sense that the AI's platforms expend their complement of SAMs more quickly, and so I can then go in and kill 'em while their rails and magazines are empty. I do wonder whether this is the "normal" relative behavior of the AI's and player's missile defenses, or if there is (are) some other setting(s) that I need to adjust... or if, as has been suggested, this is abnormal behavior, and just another symptom that reportedly exists only on my installation (in which case, I won't bother trying to tweek anything).
  7. Take a look at the surface of the water under the helo. Do you really think a sub won't be able to hear *something* from that? Fair enough, but I was thinking about a sound source in the air, at some significant vertical and horizontal separation from the sub. This example is a large physical disturbance on the surface of the water, not an acoustic response to the flying object. I certainly don't know the particulars of how it's done nor the nuances of its use or capabilities, but my understanding was that, in RL, subs are able to "hear" aircraft - at least under some conditions... and it seems plausible that they could. Of course, it may fall into the same category - and I sometimes wonder if I was just dreaming it - but I could have sworn that I once heard that self-guided AA missiles were being tested for sub use - to take out those pesky ASW helos if they got too close, I suppose.
  8. OK, then I've been misunderstanding "Units" all this time, as I thought a "Unit" was an individual ship, plane, sub, missile, etc. and didn't realize that it was instead a sub-division of a Group. (But apparently only in terms of air Groups?) Anyway, this will alter my understandings of things quite a bit. OK, individual tracking would be consistent with my observations, where, for example, I've seen air groups get split (along type/loadout boundaries) and the resulting two separate groups showed differing range circles... and I've seen cases such as air groups having, say, four planes with 11 AAW missiles left (out of 16 originally), and one member gets shot down, and the group then has just seven AAW missiles left (Which seems to indicate that when a plane gets shot down, it's full original missile load gets subtracted from the total remaining for the group - also implying that the individual planes did not expend their missiles "equally" among them in prior battle - which is a bit of a surprize to me, yet not implausible). It does mean, though, that one might be in for a bit of a nasty surprize if a group had, say, a total of five missiles remaining, and then one member got shot down, which would leave the survivors of the group with only one missile among them (assuming an original load of four missiles per plane).
  9. This question is rather multi-part, but still inter-related: When an air group consists of more than one member of only one aircraft type, how are unused fuel and weapons allocated among the individual members? That is, is each individual member tracked independently, or is there some sort of overall "formula" that determines the allocations? For example, if only one member of a group gets re-fueled, does that fuel remain associated with that one individual member, or does it effectively get distributed evenly among all the group members? Similarly, when an air group expends part of its total available weapons, do those weapons come equally from all members of the group, or do some members expend all of their weapons, while others retain some or all of theirs? (And is there any way to see this?) When individual members of such groups get shot down, or split-off from the group, how are the currently-remaining weapons and fuel allocated among the remaining members (or between the split groups)? When an air group consists of mixed types of aircraft, how does this affect or change the way these allocations occur? When an air group consists of multiple sub-groups of the same type/loadout of aircraft, how does this affect or change the way these allocations occur? What about when they are the same aircraft type with differing loadouts (and possibly differing fuel ranges)? I am curious about these things as the result of some observations (or from some recent discussion, in one case): First, I've seen the number of remaining weapons of an air group not be proportioned "equally" after member(s) of the group got shot down - sort of implying that the weapons are tracked on an individual member basis. Second, when air groups have been split, I've seen cases where one group had proportionally more remaining weapons that the other - further supporting the idea that weapons are tracked on an individual member basis. Third, I've seen cases where there were multiple sub-groups of the same aircraft type/loadout in a group, and when partial weapons were automatically allocated to a target, they all came from the first sub-group only. This seems to imply that at least sub-groups have their remaining weapons tracked independently. Recent discussion mentioned situations where there was inadequate fuel to top-off all members of the group, and touched on how fuel might be allocated in such a case. Other discussion mentioned the possibility that tanker(s) could be split-off prior to re-fueling all members, and left me wondering what effects this "unbalance" would have on the affected group - or if the fuel would be "evened out" among the group members for the purposes of tracking it in the game. It also left me wondering how re-fueling allocation works in the case of mixed groups consisting of two or more sub-groups of aircraft that have different fuel ranges - due to a/c type or loadout. In particular, does it "allocate" the amount of fuel given to each type such that the entire group will have the same remaining fuel range? (If not, what range would the range circle and BINGO computation be working with, and would this lead to situations where some of the aircraft could run out of fuel before the others, and so forth?) So, I'm curious what actually happens in these situations... and whether the player has any control over any of this (other than which weapons of each sub-group get allocated against a target)? Is fuel allocation handled in a similar way... and does the player have any influence over fuel distribution, other than forcibly splitting-off tankers prematurely)? And what sorts of unanticipated results should one watch out for in these situations? Thanks.
  10. Perhaps you are not understanding my question - or perhaps I am overlooking the sought-after information somehow - but, in any case, I don't find the level of detail that I was seeking in any of the documentation that I'm aware of. There are several other cases as well, but the one in particular that finally prompted me to ask is about the game settings for AAW auto-fire range, surface SAM fire rate, etc. Specifically, I do not understand what the scope of these settings is, nor even what they actually affect or apply to (the brief descriptions notwithstanding), but more particularly, the details of how they are used together to affect "full control" of the "automatic" player's defensive anti-missile operations. Indeed, subsequent discussion has led me to believe that the AAW auto-fire range actually has nothing to do with the automatic anti-missile defenses, but instead has some bearing on the behavior of player's air groups. But the bottom line question that I was trying to fathom, in this particular case, was how to configure the player's "automatic" anti-missile defenses so they would behave comparably to the AI's anti-missile defenses, in the sense of magnitude of response. After reading what little I found in the manuals about the matter, and even after subsequent discussion, I still do not know the answer to this. But, that particular question is not an isolated situation; I've also had trouble finding details that describe the specific functions and applicability - and nuances - of many other settings and commands, too. There are very nice charts and summaries of the commands and so forth, but I'm not finding any full descriptions of purpose and function of all that stuff, so I'm wondering if that sort of documentation exists anywhere, and if so where. Of course, the underlying concern is whether some game settings - or perhaps some unusual combination of them - might be leading to some or all of the apparently abnormal behaviors that I observe during play. Irrespective of that, though, I really would like to properly understand everything the settings do and what all they really apply to or affect.
  11. What sort of implications would this condition produce? For instance, would the range circle now be bogus - or, if not, then which unit would it apply to: the one that got fuel or the others? Also, how would it affect the actual range of the overall group? Would some of the members of the group eventually crash, while leaving the re-fueled member still flying (given they don't reach base before that, of course)?
  12. Hmmm... I wonder if this is the explanation for the occasional "self destruction" of pairs of my F-14s, etc. when none of my units ever detect anything in the area to account for it? In at least one of these instances, there were Eurofighters in the scenario, which could have been the culprits. Even so, I am still puzzled about how the Eurofighters (or whoever) even knew to look for the F-14s that were way out there in the ether... not to mention wondering how they had enough gas to get way out there to knock 'em off.
  13. Game time. Wow! That's really quick re-fueling for four planes and one tanker!
  14. It has been brought into question recently whether I properly understand the purposes and functions of some of the game settings and "special" key commands... and indeed, I have been operating under certain assumptions about several of these settings and commands in particular, because I never found much other than a cursory description of them. It is very possible that I am misunderstanding the purposes and/or effects in these cases. So, my question is, does complete documentation of the game settings and commands exist in one place somewhere - that fully describes the purpose, application, and effects of the various game settings and commands - along with any "side effects" or nuances they may have, that might not be obvious nor particularly "intuitive"? If so, please direct me to that full documentation - just so I can be sure whether there is any "user error" involved here. Thanks.
  15. When I've watched, there are two messages in the log: the first announces that the group is "arranging" for re-fueling, then a bit later, there is a second message saying that the first a/c in the group is receiving fuel (or something to that effect). I believe that second log message occurs at the same time that the Group Report changes and the range circle changes. I'm not sure, but it seems like there is a third log message about completion of re-fueling at the same time as the SA split-off advisory appears - but I usually focus on the SA message, so I'm not sure of a third log message, nor when it may occur. 8.5 minutes?? Is that game time or real time?
×
×
  • Create New...