Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'OP: Broncepulido'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The HarpGamer Forums: General Quarters
    • New at HarpGamer.com
    • Forum Guidelines
    • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    • Military History
    • Current Events
    • Shore Leave
  • Harpoon Classic/Commander's Edition
    • General
    • Scenario Design & Discussion
    • Database Design & Discussion
    • Wish Lists
    • Defect Tracking
    • HC Beta Testing
  • Harpoon (Paper Rules)
    • General
    • Scenario Design & Discussion
    • PBEM / MBX Wargaming
  • Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations
    • General
    • Scenario Design & Discussion
  • Stratsims
    • CIC (Combat Information Center)
    • CIC MP01 (Warfare Plotter)
  • Other Wargames
    • General
  • Harpoon 3/ANW
    • General
    • Scenario Design & Discussion
    • Database Design & Discussion
    • HUD4

Categories

  • Harpoon Classic/HC/HCE/HUCE
    • Databases
    • Scenarios
    • BattleSets
    • Tools/Mods/Docs
  • Harpoon 2/3/ANW
    • Databases
    • Scenarios
    • BattleSets
    • Tools/Docs
  • Command
    • Scenarios
  • SimPlot
    • Scenarios
    • Maps
    • Application/Tools/Mods/Docs

Categories

  • Ships
  • Submarines
  • Aircraft
  • Land Vehicles
  • Installations
  • Mounts
  • Magazines
  • Sensors
  • Weapons

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

  1. playing the Heart 3 scenario (2022 attack on Taiwan) at some 4 hours of gameplay this adjunted error (See files): taiwna 222222.hpq
  2. I know these weapons were corrected as four years ago in the game engine because excessive accuracy (don't remember it well now). With many years of delay at last Longshot HAAWC (weapon entry #22580) reached IOC in November 2022, and my idea was to introduce it in the new scenarios after 11/2022. Previously Stand Off ASW are little employed (mostly for old Soviet/Russian SSNs) and I didn't repair on this bug. When a Stand Off ASW weapon is now employed, the torpedo (I didn't tested nuke depth bombs) drops in water TEN NM from the target, and the torpedo never can reach the submarine target. If the launching ship is less than 10 NM from the target, the torpedo drops in water almost inmediatally, making the ship's ASW torpedo tubes redundant, and also never reaching the submarine target. I don't know how to focus this problem (reducing the torpedo drop distance to 1, 2 or 3 NM???). I upload a test scenario here to show the situation. Is of the 2003 Mediterranean Battleset. It's a Red DISSUB some 7 NM south of each Neutral Oil Rig, the idea is to find it and attack with Stand Off ASWs (the effect and meditions is clearer employing the Longshot-carrying P-8A Poseidon based at Catania-Sigonella, now, in game terms, the "updated" Poseidon are a complete failure!), to observe the mentioned effect, Thanks! 2023-03 ASROC et alt TEST.zip
  3. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000007 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2009.050 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.070 Planes on Carrier math problemPosted by broncepulido on 06 January 2013 - 02:09 AM I was in the modelling phase of a scenario with the old CVB-43 USS Coral Sea of the Cold War DB, with a nominal 137 (small and old) planes capacity. When I essay to load the first type of plane in the Scenario Editor, I saw the indication of maximum number of planes=65417 !!!!!!!! I say OK, but it's loaded only one plane !!! Testing with some numbers (1, 136, 137, 138, 255,256, 257, 1000, 10000) the outcome is ever the same, one plane loaded !! Issue-007-Planes-on-Carrier-math-problem.pdf
  4. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000072 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2014.008 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.009 Another overflow computing damage points?Posted by broncepulido on 21 May 2014 - 08:34 AM Two images of two damage outcomes running "Submarines Galore 2014!!!" (see adjunt file): In the first image, firing a Mk48 Mod 5 ADCAP (1988+) torpedo from SSN Hartford against an SSN Akula-class (K-317 Pantera). In my personal DB the Mk48 Mod 5 ADCAP has 105 damage points against a sub (and 209 against a surface ship). The Akula has 138 damage points. But the dialog Window about the impact reads Akula "hit 1 times for 30105 DP" !!! In the second image, firing a Mk48 Mod 4M (2004+) torpedo from a Dutch SS Zeeleeuw against an SSN Sierra II-class (B-275 Kostroma). In my personal DB the Mk48 Mod 4M has 95 damage points against a sub (and 190 against a surface ship). The Sierra II has 141 damage points. And the dialog Window show Sierra II with a more normal comment: "hit 1 times for 232 DP". Issue-072-Another-overflow-computing-damage-points.pdf Torpedo hit point error Firing a Mk48 torpedo from SSN Hartford against an Akula.doc Torpedo hit point error Firing a Mk48 torpedo from SSN Hartford against an Oscar II.doc torpedo1.zip
  5. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000114 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.007 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.008 Error renaming and reading bases in 2015.07Posted by broncepulido on 22 June 2015 - 12:38 PM In a in construction scenario I watched as the generic bases renamed have returned to generic names after HC2015.007 implemented. I've returned to HC2015.004 (I don't tested 005 to 006) and the renamed names are recovered. As example you can test in the attached LCS 2 scenario (is the standard issued scenario) as Fiery Cross Reef (ZXa) is reverted to Generic Small Airport. Is the same effect both in Game Engine and Scenario Editor. Issue-114-Error-renaming-and-reading-bases-in-2015.07.pdf LCSFORTWORTH52015.zip
  6. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000103 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.021 Error setting nuclear releasePosted by broncepulido on 25 November 2014 - 12:14 PM When modifying the Brisbane Summit 2014 scenario a few minutes ago, I did get the attached error message when trying to change or add another time for the "Grant nuclear reléase" option (And I was expelled of the program each time, pulsing "ignore" or "retry"). Issue-103-Error-setting-nuclear-release.pdf Harpoon Test Error Grant Nuclear Release dialog.doc
  7. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000104 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.021 Error building scenarioPosted by broncepulido on 30 November 2014 - 12:24 AM I was building a big scenario when it fails to work both in GE and SE-32 (I've some previous copy). Is for the EC 2003 GIUK Gap Battleset and Standard HCDB 1980-2015. Can you open or play it? Any idea about the error? Issue-104-Error-building-scenario.pdf WWIII91.zip WWIII91-Fixed.zip
  8. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000118 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.017 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.020 Errour in SE splitting groups in Build 2015.017Posted by broncepulido on 05 October 2015 - 11:54 AM When splitting a surface group Windows errour alert and legend open (see attached file), after many attemps SE crashes, I think is a generic errour but undetected yet because few people building scenarios with the 2015.008+. Issue-118-Errour-in-SE-splitting-groups-in-Build-2015.017.pdf Harpoon error spliting groups.doc LATAKIA1.zip
  9. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000121 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.021 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.022 Scenarios previously in development don't keep ship and bases namesPosted by broncepulido on 18 October 2015 - 10:18 PM After retaking the old scenario building, the renamed bases and ships don't retain their customized names (with Control-+U, usually) and all the ships of the same class have received the first name in the list name of that class in both SE and GE (as example, in the HCDA all the deployed in the map civilian tankers of the British Esk class (group AJS) are named as British Wye, the first ship name in the class). Also base Yxb should be named Grytviken. Issue-121-Scenarios-previously-in-development-don't-keep-ship-and-bases-names.pdf SATL82.zip
  10. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000130 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.024 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.025 Air group blocked in launchingPosted by broncepulido on 11 November 2015 - 10:28 AM Playing the Tesseract scenario by Brad (but probably it can apply to any other). Vietnamese Air Force in Da Nang IAP (AAa). Some Chinese long range missiles were fired at Da Nang at the scenario start. To prevent loses, I ordered to take-off the few Vietnamese planes present at Da Nang, in small groups. - Group BG000 composed by 2xSu-27MK2V with Intercept-2 loadout. - Group BH000 composed by 2xSu-27MK2V Flanker-F with Precis loadout. Both groups lose 1xSu-27 at the take-off (killed in the runway by the incoming Chinese missiles). Now both groups (see attached file) are composed now only by 1xSu-27, but both are "frozen" in the "launching" phase, waiting for the other Su-27 (but them can never reach the group, both are destroyed), I can't issue orders to the two groups, and very probably in hour or so they will be destroyed by lack of fuel! I think never experimented this issue in similar cases for years, I'm almost sure is a new "effect"! Attached Files Issue-130-Air-group-blocked-in-launching.pdf TESSER LAUNCHING.zip
  11. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000138 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2015.028 ⦁ Fixed in 2016.001 Two generated installations in SE are failedPosted by broncepulido on 19 December 2015 - 02:58 AM When I was adding generic Port Facility, INTL, to the in progress scenario, I generate 3xPort Facility in a row, for later rename and replace them in the map for faster scenario building, and the result was: - The first port is ok, is ZFp base, now in middle of the Black Sea. - But pushing on the "Space" key, we can see the other two bases are irregularly name "Red Group ZD" and "Red Group ZE" ! Saving and posting the file. Issue-138-Two-generated-installations-in-SE-are-failed.pdf BLACK SEA 2015 (3).zip
  12. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000160 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2016.007 ⦁ Fixed in 2016.010 Incapable to intercept enemy aircrafts in autopatrol.Posted by broncepulido on 26 August 2016 - 05:33 AM As commented, but slightly better explained: Employing the simple F-35A Lightining II Learning Curve scenario (GIUK Battleset): The F-35 in patrol can't intercept or attack the Flankers in patrol in the Russian base, after detected at medium-long range by ESM. When F-35 are ordered "to attack" the Russian base, clicking on the own F-35 group (pretending to attack the Flankers in autopatrol entouring Kaliningrad) the answers is "we have not weapons to attack a surface target", not giving the option to attack the aircrafts in autopatrol. When ordered "intercept" the Russian base, cliking on the Russian base (pretending to attack the Flankers in autopatrol) the answers is the same: "we have not weapons to attack a surface target", not giving the option to attack the aircrafts in autopatrol. Attached filed are scenario and savegame with the depicted situation. Issue-160-Incapable-to-intercept-enemy-aircrafts-in-autopatrol.pdf F-35A PATROL TEST.zip
  13. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000165 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2017.001 ⦁ Fixed in 2017.002 Anti-surface AGM-114M missile IR/Laser guidance weird behaviourPosted by broncepulido on 06 November 2016 - 10:12 AM Playing the Red Sea Sharks scenario. When approaching to attack some Yemeni ports with MH-60S with AGM-114M, a weird result. - Attack a single MANPADS site not attached to any Port installation: no problems. - Attack a single MANPADS site, but attached as part/formation of a Port: I get the "target no radiating" promt in the essays of attack in the attribution of missiles to targets windows., and no attack possible The same income as in the attached test scenario with a MH-60R (with the same loadout, but equipped with radar, in case was that the issue, but not). If MANPADS is attached to a ship group (Exocet TEL), the outcome firing with MH-60S/AGM-114M outcome are very similar. Attached test scenarios "Test AGM-114M" and "Test AGM-114M with Exocet TEL" and savegames near to target: - Very simple test scenario, USS Ponce attacking with MH-60S and MH-60R, both with the same loadout with 8xAGM-114M. - Second scenario adding Exocet TEL to verify the case with MANPADS attached to ship group. Issue-179-Tankers-will-not-Seperate-From-Group-at-Bingo-Fuel.pdf Air to Air Refueling.zip
  14. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000184 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2017.007 ⦁ Fixed in 2017.009 Impossible to launch ASW torpedo from helicopterPosted by broncepulido on 15 May 2017 - 01:31 PM A new bug? Essaying a new scenario, in the last 6 test or so, when a Russia 636.3 conventional submarine is very near or just below ("0" nm), the ASW torpedo (Stingray Mod 1 torpedo, refused to be launched, and I get this staff message: "Sir, the effective attack range for these aircraft is 4 NM. Target range is 0 NM. Should we close and attack?" In the attached file the Merlin is just over the Russian Kilo. Is GIUK 2003 Battleset, and latest DB. Issue-184-Impossible-to-launch-ASW-torpedo-from-helicopter.pdf MERLIN TORPEDO ERROR.zip MERLIN TORPEDO ERROR 2.zip MERLIN TORPEDO ERROR 3.zip SOMERSET KRASNODAR 2017-5-5.zip
  15. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000185 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2017.007 ⦁ Fixed in 2017.009 Failure editing Airfield SecretPosted by broncepulido on 27 May 2017 - 01:26 AM When building a new scenario, I put an "Aifield Secret" on the map, but it's impossible to edit it to add any aircraft (Probably because its classification as "Air Defence" but not "Base"). See attached file, Airfield Secret is in the red side. Middle East Battleset. Issue-185-Failure-editing-Airfield-Secret.pdf TEST AIRFIELD SECRET FAILURE.zip
  16. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000187 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2017.009 ⦁ Fixed in 2017.011 Game "frozen" after 40 seconds gameplayPosted by broncepulido on 04 July 2017 - 01:12 PM Tested a few probed scenarios, apparently with 2017.009 game frozens after 40 seconds of game play. Same when later is also installed 2017.010 after 2017.009. Someone gets the same outcome? Issue-187-Game-frozen-after-40-seconds-gameplay.pdf
  17. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000097 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.020 SE32 Enter Time Delta for EventPosted by broncepulido on 06 November 2014 - 10:39 AM I think is the first time I essay to configure an air patrol to launch in the new SE32 (the rest did go fine in my first complete scenario designed 100% with SE32)and surprise, the "enter time variation" in % option is in grey in the dialog and not operative, as showed in the attached file image. Issue-097-SE32-Enter-Time-Delta-for-Event.pdf HARPOON ERROR ENTER TIME DELTA FOR EVENT.doc Harpoon LR repeat patrol dialog 2.doc
  18. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000134 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2015.025 ⦁ Fixed in Problem naming individual shipsPosted by broncepulido on 23 November 2015 - 10:11 AM After installing 2015.25 and 2015.26 the individual ship names are changed without clear pattern, both in SE and GE. As example: - I did modify scenario Prelude to Desert Storm 1990 (the attached scenario is the same version in the downloads section at 23 November 2015), to "recovery" the actual historical shipnames. - I didn't modify scenario Clash of DDGs: Spratly Islands 2015, to verify the differences between a modified and an unmodified scenario after 2015.25-2015.26 (the attached scenario is the same version in the downloads section at 23 November 2015). In the previously to the modification employing 2015.25 and 2015.26, in the Prelude to Desert Storm 1990 scenario both in GE and SEwere present these shipnames alterations: - FF Knox-class Downes was called erroneously Meyerkord (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FFG Halyburton-class Rentz was called erroneously Klakring (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FFG Underwood-class Vandergrift was erroneously called Kauffman (and is not a near name in the scroll). - CG Leahy-class England was erroneously called Leahy (and is not a near name in the scroll).​ - The neutral ship names are also all altered, I think (I choosed for them "Arabic" names from the scroll list, and now are not present, i.e. they should be showed if we load the scenario with 2015.24, or perhaps not?). In the unmodified DDG clash 2015 Spratly Islands WestPac scenario (I think was designed with 2015.24 SE) both in GE and SE are present these shipnames alterations - The starring DDG Arleigh Burke IIA-class named Lassen is now called Donald Cook (and is not a near name in the scroll) - The Red/Chinese ship names are also all translocated: - DDG Kunming Type 052D-class "Kunming 172" is now called "119" (and is not a near name in the scroll). - DDG Luyang Type 052C-class "Lanzhou 170" is now called "Xian 153" (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FF Jianghu II Type 053/1-class "Taizhou 533" is now called correctly "Taizhou 533" (but I changed this name 31 October, some days after the scenario release in 27 October). Only this last Chinese ship name is not changed, and perhaps because it was modified after. Issue-134-Problem-naming-individual-ships.pdf DDG CLASH 10 2015.zip DESERT SHIELD 1990.zip
  19. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000159 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2016.017 ⦁ Fixed in 2016.017 Fox-3, but activating radar!Posted by broncepulido on 23 August 2016 - 11:14 AM Testing the F-35A Learning Curve scenario I see when a F-35A flight (or Portuguese Air Force F-16) is ordered to intercept Russian warplanes, even within or beyond AIM-120 AMRAAM missile range, the F-35A (or F-16) radar is activated, delating our presence to the opossite side. One of the main ideas of active radar homing missiles is to not reveal the launcher plane position, but with those actiones their position is revealed. I comment this basically because I'm almost sure in previous builts (for years?) when a fighter launch Fox-2 (passive IR guidance) or Fox-3 (active radar homing missile) the launcher radar is not activated, only in the cases of Fox-1 (semi-active radar homing missile) lauch. I'm not sure if my description is real, or simply my memory fail. Can it be changed/corrected? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia...Fox_(code_word) Issue-159-Fox-3-but-activating-radar.pdf
  20. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000119 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2015.017 ⦁ Fixed in Errour building group or base.Posted by broncepulido on 10 October 2015 - 10:59 AM Build 2005.017, Middle East Map, latest HCDB. I'm keep working in a current times Latakia scenario. How I want a pair more of coastal Syrian ports I duplicted two times more Tartus to simulate Latakia Port and Baniyas. The second time I choosed to create Tartus (third time if we exclude the original Tartus placement), it was open as usual the menu to include some ships in the group, and added by the SE the first Albanian vessel in the ships' list with the name " !!!!!!!!!!!!! " . Later the group appears apparently beyond the map south border. I traslated it West to Palmachim (Israel), and is name group " ZH ", with an unclassified ship named !!!!!!!!!!! and no Tartus base! See attached file (I included two archives because I'm not sure what is the correct savefile, I think the bigger of 32 Kb). Issue-119-Errour-building-group-or-base.pdf LATAKIA 2015.zip
  21. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000164 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2016.010 ⦁ Fixed in "Phantom" groups splitting groups in SEPosted by broncepulido on 05 November 2016 - 01:21 AM For sake of accelerate scenario building, many times I build a group with many units (Iranian MANPADS in this example), and later split it to place the diverse units on the map. Now, in SC 2016.10 (and probably in previous versions), if you split the group, the new group is not showed on the map at first instance. But you can select it alternatively with the space bar and delete keys, and after selected you can "change group position", and the new group is showed. Is a little molest when you're building scenarios, thanks. (attached very simple example, with only a Red side group with Iranian MANPADS, split it, select with the mouse the "mother" group (with 5 remaining MANPADS), change his position in the map, and you shouldn't see the "son" group (with only 1 MANPADS), select the "ghost/invisible" group with "space bar" or "delete" keys, change his "group position" in the map, and you should see now the "son" group, previously a invisible "ghost" group). Issue-164-Phantom-groups-splitting-groups-in-SE.pdf TEST GROUP SPLIT.zip
  22. Issue Information Issue ID #000092 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 91 – Duplicate Version 2014.019 Fixed in Minor graphic column error in SE 32-bitsPosted by broncepulido on 16 October 2014 - 05:25 PM Building a new sub scenario I saw a lack of correlation between weapons values and columns in the Scenario Editor 32-bits. In the game engine all is ok. In short: The quantity of weapons number is showed in the Target type column. The target type is showed in the Range column. The weapon ranges is showed in the Hit% column The weapon PH is showed in the Damage column. See the example in attached Word file. Issue-092-Minor-graphic-column-error-in-SE-32-bits.pdf Harpoon SE32 Window Error.doc
  23. Issue Information Issue ID #000124 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 91 – Duplicate Version 2015.022 Fixed in 2015.023 Weapon expenditure not showedPosted by broncepulido on 28 October 2015 - 04:22 PM I'm not sure if related with this, but playing the Clash of DDGs scenario with Build 2015.022, clicking in one ship in the "Unit Window", and clicking in "Full" and in "Weapons Details", is not showed missile or gun expediture at all, and it's impossible. Previously the notation was with two figures separed with a slash, type "Standard MR2 Block IIIb 40/40", changing to 39/40 just to 0/40 whith all the missile magazine depleted, but now is type "Standard MR2 Block IIIb 40", and that single figure don't change when missiles are fired. Issue-124-Weapon-expenditure-not-showed.pdf
  24. Issue Information Issue ID #000001 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 91 – Duplicate Version 2015.028 Fixed in 2016.002 Undetermined problem finishing scenarioPosted by broncepulido on 13 March 2016 - 02:14 PM Just when I was finishing the building of a great scenario, something is wrong and now the scenario can't start (it only lacks delete some US submarines, add paths and speeds to submarines and add other chinese ships). I was thinking the problem was the Stennis Group (AEC), but I'm not sure (perhaps after change variable start points, but I don't see it clear). Too late in the day to find it now! (see attached file).
  25. Issue Information Issue ID #000006 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 20 – Fix Postponed Version 0000.000 Fixed in Scenario Editor Victory Conditions math problemPosted by broncepulido on 06 January 2013 - 01:56 AM When I put as victory condition in the Scenario Editor (I use the last version of it) 300 planes shot-down, I see after reflected as victory condition in the window only 44 planes shot-down. After a short testing,I think I shaw the same problem as with the missiles and decoys some weeks ago: if I put 255 or less planes shot-down as victory condition everything is OK, if I put 256 the victory condition showed is 1 plane shot-down (i.e., apparently the final values Y are the result of X-256=Y if X>255). Issue-006-Scenario-Editor-Victory-Conditions-math-problem.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...