VictorInThePacific

File Name: Keyboard Commands, by type File Submitter: VictorInThePacific File Submitted: 16 Apr 2009 File Category: Tools/Mods/Docs Authors: VictorInThePacific Provides a list of the keyboard commands available in HCE, sorted by type, with a small amount of formatting thrown in. Click here to download this file

try this ai file hardly compressed indesign file compressed a whopping 6 x cards.zip

trying with the Illustrator file (1 Mb) didn't like that one either: "Upload failed. You are not permitted to upload this type of file" suggestions?

Sorry, Tony, I missed your request for 3 days, otherwise I would have done this sooner. Here is the InDesign file, a whopping 4 Mb. or not "Upload failed. You are not permitted to upload this type of file"

bet these guys can't wait for global warming to happen

They are yours, to use as you see fit. Making PDFs is probably a good idea, because that fixes the images at a point where you have reviewed and approved them. You probably should copy and store the PNG files somewhere, and then make the PDFs of your copies, to guarantee that you know where the source files are. I could in principle also send you the original original files (one Adobe Illustrator, one Adobe InDesign) so that you have the original originals, but PNGs should serve the purpose.

And now for something completely unrelated: On Apr. 2, 09, 8:38 PM, my time, I made a post (# 17; content was later deleted). Tony quoted me in post # 19, where my post # 17 is dated as Apr. 2, 09, 10:38 PM, Tony's time. Tony made post # 19 on Apr. 4, 09, 5:36 PM, his time. I quoted him in post # 20, where his post # 19 is dated as Apr. 4, 09, 4:36 PM, my time. So Tony's time is 2 hours later than my time, but my time is one hour earlier than Tony's time.

Final version, I hope. This version of the keycard, sorted by functionality, includes the 3 functions that are really only useful for testers, plus the new 1:1 time command. I have also done some minor reformatting. Having promised to remove the working but not useful "memory" command for some time, I have now done so. I have put in the "on station" command, which I didn't understand originally, but it appears to be necessary for certain situations. I have used "on station AREAS" instead of " ... rectangles" because it doesn't change the meaning of the term, but it reduces the line length.

Very nice work, Stalin. Now if people are perhaps interested in having a range of different options (not that I'm offering to contribute anything), you might want to consider Captain Haddock. Or Captain Harlock. Or ... Once you go there, the possibilities are endless.

One other change I may be making. The "fast saves" line (testers section) is in red, but it occurs to me that there may be a mouse-accessible game option that does this, in which case the line should be in black. I will be investigating this point now, but perhaps someone already has a definite answer to this point.

to all the people that give so much time and energy to improving Harpoon. This includes people who only ask a simple question, because each question generates a discussion, which makes information available to the entire Harpoon community.

You will note that the layout is presently balanced. Adding one line will unbalance it. So what I intend to do is replace an existing line with the "on station" line. The best candidate will be the "show free memory" one because, although it does seem to work properly, it has no conceivable value that I am aware of. Relative to what Harpoon uses, computers today will never lack for memory. Any objections to this replacement? M has already been removed from the green card.

U R -> my mistake

Here is the third draft of the graphical representation of the keyboard commands. The 3 testing functions, plus the new 1:1 time command, have been added. As mentioned above, some of the functions included, such as "free memory" should probably not be included.

minor change made; post deleted; new version below.

lotta rust there

Completely unhelpful? Not so fast, my friends! http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2007/09/sailing-ship-re.html

When I posted my March 11 comment, I was actually quite angry. It may well be that what I was trying to say didn’t come across very clearly, so I will be more explicit. Industrial-scale nuclear fission produces an enormous amount of toxic waste. These by-products and end-products remain deadly for such long time scales that we can realistically use the word “forever”. The only safe way of disposing of this stuff is to drop it into the Sun. There are low-risk Earth-based disposal methods, but they are not risk-free. If reactor design, reactor production, reactor operation and maintenance, fuel production and transport, and waste product collection, transport, and disposal are all done properly, then nuclear fission as a source of energy can be quite safe, barring natural disasters or human sabotage. Where the process breaks down and becomes dangerously unsafe is when somebody decides to cut corners for whatever reason (generally personal profit) and do something irresponsible. In the case of the pictures Brad showed, somebody decided to just leave the toxic waste lying around in an open field. In the case of Hanford, it really isn’t much better than that. Of course, nuclear weapons are not safe to use in any way. So far, we have managed to keep that particular demon in the bottle. Probably anyone who is reading this will recognize the following exchange: “God help you if you’re wrong.” “If I’m wrong, God help us all.” Regarding coal power, without getting into any details, we know that it is dangerous in at least the following ways: 1) Immediate deaths and injuries in coal mining; 2) Long-term disability and early death of coal miners; 3) Immediate atmospheric effects (China and Poland provide good examples); 4) Less-obvious toxic by-products. The unfortunate reality is that we will at some point run out of cheap fossil fuels. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) I just want to make one comment about that: the Hubbert model is a purely empirical model and is not intended to provide a detailed explanation of anything at all. Once the cheap oil is gone, we can go back to coal, or use more solar, wind, wave, or fission power. One of the biggest problems with all the alternatives is that none of them is directly usable for cars and airplanes, which means that transportation becomes a huge problem. Different fuels have different energy contents. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) Benchmarks on that table are wood, coal, gasoline, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion. There are good reasons why the human race moved to coal and then gasoline as a power source, and some of them are contained in that table. Nuclear fusion is, of course, the holy grail. It is fundamentally safe and clean. We may even be reasonably close to achieving it (as a power source). It is not enough to consider the energy content when choosing a fuel. You also need an engine that can use that particular fuel, and engineering considerations become very important. In the case of coal power, for example, the best that we were able to come up with was the steam turbine, which is really only suitable for stationary power plants and ships.

After careful study, I have determined that it is either a) a false-color image of the first .00013 seconds; B] a full-color Rorschach test; c) Batman's fist striking the bad guy.

It was my intention to post some silly reply after CV posted the answer, but now that he has posted the answer, I don't feel like doing that any more. This sort of s#$% is why fission power will never be safe. And if you think the Americans do it better, please research Hanford.

I'm sure it's either 1) a giant-sized bed of nails; or 2) amphorae.

I assume you mean 40 per Aegis ship? Yes. Bear in mind, there will be significant scatter about this result. Some of these weapons will roll a low damage result (pass through the captain's cabin without exploding), and some of them will do catastrophic damage (hit and destroy the ship's liquor still, causing the entire crew to abandon ship). It is also the 1-ship result, which will only apply under certain restrictions, such as the ship being in fact alone, or the ship being tactically isolated, or possible supporting ships being themselves fully engaged with other problems. And, as usual, there are a number of implied assumptions and unstated conditions, such as that we are talking about an SM-2 equipped Aegis ship.

What I have done is present the calculation (finally), using a particular set of assumptions (rules), stating the assumptions as clearly as possible. If a different set of assumptions is appropriate, then it should also be fairly clear how the calculation would be modified. I have tried to avoid suggesting an attack that takes advantage of game idiosyncrasies. Bottom line: 40 first-rate ASMs, properly employed, will wreck or sink any Aegis ship.

Okay, I just tried this myself, using the units indicated. At 28 nm and VLow, the Flanker lives. Pop the Flanker up to Low, and the Burke launches. Drop the Flanker back to VLow as soon as the SAMs are detected, and the SAMs continue to guide and kill the Flanker at VLow. On this basis, I would conclude that your option 1) is TRUE, and option 2) is FALSE. Hope this helps ... Thanks, Warhorse, for resolving this so speedily. I have also tried this and obtained the identical result. I used the demo, Westpac 9, "The Backyard (part 1)". BLUE has a bunch of stuff, including a 5-ship surface group wandering around near a Russian airbase. There are no Flanker Cs kicking around, but there are a bunch of Su-27s, which appear to be quite safe at VL altitude. The surface group in question has 4 weaker ships, but the main ship is a Japanese Kongo DDG (Arleigh Burke equivalent), with Aegis and SM-2s. I had a Mainstay within 75 nm to detect stuff. I flew a number of Flankers (3, one after the other) towards the Kongo at VL, staying away from the other ships. (There were Seahawks flying around too, but no AWACS.) At 50 nm away from the Kongo, I got the "entering AA range" warning, but nothing happened. At 40 nm, the Flanker went to med. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL. Nothing happened (the SAM missed). At 31 nm, the Flanker loitered at VL. Nothing happened. The Flanker went to med. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL. Splash Flanker #1. Flanker #2 came in all the way to 30 nm at VL and then loitered. Nothing happened. It went to low. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL. Splash Flanker #2. Flanker #3 came in all the way to 30 nm at VL and then loitered. Nothing happened. It went to low. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL. The SAM missed. The Flanker went to low. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL and retreated. 42 nm from the Kongo, splash Flanker #3. My trial was somewhat complicated due to the fact that the BLUE CVBG kept sending fighters over to interfere with the advancement of scientific research. Once again, thanks for helping me to resolve this problem. I will incorporate the results into my calculation. Incidentally, Badgers do not appear to perform well at VL. I lost 2 of 4 on a maximum-range round trip. ______________________________________________________________ So my next question is, ships such an Arleigh Burke carry things that look like weapons, with ammunition and so forth: naval decoys and naval ECM. I am guessing that the decoys can be launched at incoming missiles (shortly before impact) and each of them has a 20 % chance of eliminating the missile. I am assuming that the computer controls this. Is this correct?