Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'VerRep: 2009.076'.

  • 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

Found 8 results

  1. Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000019 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2009.076 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.076 Standoff jamming does not modify missile PhPosted by Grumble on 21 May 2013 - 04:12 PM I was thinking whether to post this as a question for the General or open an Issue. Common sense says that escort and standoff jamming both should influence radar guided missile hit probability, I finally decided "Issue" after I found this post of Tony http://harpgamer.com...e-notes/?p=6008 Test scenario is in HDS1. Two flight of bombers are loitering just NE of Kinloss. ZXA 4 x Tu-16 Bmbr + 1 x Tu-16 J EW ZYA 4 x Tu-16 Bmbr The two groups are on top of each other, ZXA at High, ZYA at Medium 4 F-14s are ready to assist with the test just 3nm S of them. (savegame: EW) Firing 4 x AIM120 at ZXA000 (the escorted Badgers) yields PH 45 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 38 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 98 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 89 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 29 101455 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 2 hits As far as I can tell that is 40 DPh for AMRAAM + 30 - 20 for escort Tu-16 ECM - 5 for Tu-16 Bmbr DATA Firing 4 x AIM120 at ZYA000 (the "standoffed" Badgers) yields PH 65 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 27 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 3 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 57 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 58 101462 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 4 hits E.g. no standoff jamming bonus of -20 PH for the Badgers Just to crosscheck kill of the EW bird, with AIM9 of course, confirms nicely that IR AAM is unaffected by EW and attack again remainder of ZXA, now without EW escort gives same PH 65 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 0 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 35 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 39 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 20 101529 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 4 hits I expected and posts suggest too that ZYA should have also received the PH bonus against AAMs. Issue-019-Standoff-jamming-does-not-modify-missile-Ph.pdf EW.zip
  2. Issue Information Issue ID #000024 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 91 – Duplicate Version 2009.076 Fixed in Dead fish in the water - Red subs do not navigatePosted by Grumble on 16 June 2013 - 09:33 AM Playing HDS2 3.0, Convoy Ho!, red submarines were painfully hard to detect, yet they were themselves very passive. I checked what are they up to with Show All. Looks like there is a some problem, either with the scenario or with the AI navigation, SE shows red groups would need to do creep speed on their patrol routes, except perhaps ZKU, starting from further North at 25kts, but ZKU would also slow down to 5kts after reaching the expected path of the convoys. Red group routes at the start, Show All, playing Blue. The Red subs stop navigating after just a few miles, they either stop completely or do roundabouts on the spot at 5kts speed. Red group routes at the end of the game, 10 days gametime has passed, showing they did go nowhere. I tripped over ZJU V3023 at the end of the game, taking a closer look, it is laying in place, going nowhere, speed at 5kts, it's course alternates between 77 and 249 degrees and sometime it also does instantaneous depth changes between deep and shallow. It can not move, even after Show All, clearing it's path and plotting a new one, it does not obey move orders. While laying in wait could be a good ASW tactics it's not what the AI was scripted to do here. I only attached an end game save, the issue is very easy to reproduce, restarting the scenario playing blue, red subs behave the same way every time. ++ Just checked HSD2 4.0, same symptoms. ++ HDS2 5.0 too. Issue-024-Dead-fish-in-the-water-Red-subs-do-not-navigate.pdf CrazyIvan.zip HDS2-3.zip hds230stop (1).zip hds230stop.zip hds250stop.zip SUB.zip
  3. Issue Information Issue ID #000021 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 23 – Fix Accepted By Reporter Version 2009.076 Fixed in 2009.082 Neutral Green Truck detects Red Katiuska sitePosted by broncepulido on 23 May 2013 - 11:02 AM A Green neutral truck detects for the Blue side the placement of a Red Katiusta site. See the attached file, Red Katiuska site is detected 3 nm W of the Green truck (I perceived this effect building the last week-end the Drone Scenario). Issue-021-Neutral-Green-Truck-detects-Red-Katiuska-site.pdf AGSATST.zip
  4. Issue Information Issue ID #000015 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 23 – Fix Accepted By Reporter Version 2009.076 Fixed in 2009.078 Unable to Add additional Groups Blue or Red in 2009.072 SEPosted by eeustice on 05 May 2013 - 01:01 PM In the Westpac Battle Set Scenario 9 The Backyard I have reached some kind of maximum limit in the SE of how many units I can have. I can not add anymore ships/subs, plane groups, bases or air defense units to bases. If I add anymore units In the SE it takes away a sub away from sub group ASU (sub group just north of the red CV group by China). Happens if I add a Red or Blue ship/sub air group or AD unit. Attached is my edited db dated 130504. I also included the edited West Pac scenario as well as the report from the analyze scenario screen. All files are in the zipped commandb. zip file. I was unable to add any ASW helo's the to the DD's, DDG's and FFG's in groups AMC and ANC. I am testing a way to fly MH-60R's (ASW-LR) aircraft with a Wake Island class BBLHA with 70 helo's for transfer to outer sector DDG's, DD's and FFG's during the game as a fix for this problem by detaching the ships from the group and flying the helo's to the ship during the game. Once I start the scenario with the GE I am able to divide the real large air groups up to smaller ones with different load outs. There are 140 F35B's on Guam to ferry out to the Wake Island later on in the game if needed. This is not a show stopper for this scenario, however if there was a lot more red side subs it would create a major problem for Task Group protection. Thanks, Eric Issue-015-Unable-to-Add-additional-Groups-Blue-or-Red-in-2009-72-SE.pdf commondb.zip
  5. Issue Information Issue ID #000018 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 23 – Fix Accepted By Reporter Version 2009.076 Fixed in 2014.006 Phoenix AAM intercept course calculation errorPosted by Grumble on 18 May 2013 - 12:20 PM AIM-54C "overreacts" 180 degree turn of it's target and turns toward extremely distant interception point. This is playing HDS1 5.0. Su-24 Fencers (plane group UFA) are attacking Keflavik, F-14s launched 2 Phoenixes (GBM) on them and F-15s (FHA) also attack with AMRAAMs. After the AMRAAMs shoot down a Fencer the remaining Sukhois turn to attack the F-15s. The Phoenixes are already well underway during this. (savegame: crazyphoenix1) When UFA is in range of FHA's Sidewinders launch two at them. The (stub of the?) evasion routine kicks in (?) and UFA briefly turns to 166 degree then back again to 345 towards FHA. GBM first turns to the correct 84 degree course for a second and then to 177 degree! (savegame: crazyphoenix2) Issue-018-Phoenix-AAM-intercept-course-calculation-error.pdf crazyphoenix.zip
  6. Issue Information Issue ID #000020 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 23 – Fix Accepted By Reporter Version 2009.076 Fixed in 2009.082 Has been deleted the air-to-ground capacity of aircrafts guns?Posted by broncepulido on 23 May 2013 - 10:53 AM I think this capability was deleted some few years ago, but today I constated the air-to-ground guns are not showed in the 2009.76 build. Test scenario attached, with many planes with air-to-ground guns modelled as guns, and some others with the guns modelled as ordnace, doing his job as usual. The targets are SE of the airbase. Issue-020-Has-been-deleted-the-air-to-ground-capacity-of-aircrafts-guns_.pdf AGSATST.zip
  7. Issue Information Issue ID #000017 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.076 Fixed in GE allows launching AAMs on target without exact fixPosted by Grumble on 09 May 2013 - 11:00 AM When a target is in range of an AAM the GE allows launch on target without exact fix. This is regardless of guidance type, so IR, SARH and Active Homing, etc., all affected. The attacking a/c (well, the attacking side) should have exact fix before allowed to launch, currently the "Should we attempt to locate ..." SA message is only triggered if the target is out of range of the AAM. Expected behavior: GE should always prompt attacker first to locate target if there is no exact fix on it. [ Hopefully the "Should we attempt to locate" case is coded for the AI side otherwise fixing this issue would make the AI less potent in defending itself. However currently the AI probably enjoys unfair advantage too, it was reported on the forum that Mig31s are launching long range AAMs on F-22s when those are too far away to have exact fix on the stealth a/c (unconfirmed). ] Sequence to reproduce: Load original GIUK user scenario nofix.sc1 Turn off Kinloss base radar and launch Tornado F3 patrol to Cape Wrath. (savegame nofixF3.hp1) Turn on Tornado radar when onsta to locate Tu-95 loitering North of Cape Wrath. The Tornado will loose fix on the Bear as it turns South while loitering (savegame nofixF3nofix.hp1) Order the Tornado to attack the Bear, GE allows launch of Skyflash and Sidewinders without exact fix. Restart or order the Tornado home and launch F-14s to patrol over the Norwegian sea, halfway to Faroe Islands. There is an uncertain Recon Bear contact over the Islands. (savegame nofixF14.hp1) Order the Tomcat to attack the Recon Bear when still more than 110nm away from the Islands. GE correctly prompts player to "Locate..." Send the Tomcat further North (savegame nofixF14inrange.hp1) Attack the Bear again, GE allows launch without exact fix if the Bear is in range of the Phoenixes. Attached the scenario and the savegames. Issue-17-GE-allows-launching-AAMs-on-target-without-exact-fix.pdf nofix.zip
  8. Issue Information Issue ID #000016 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.076 Fixed in Debug Assertion Failed Wespac Scenario CrashPosted by eeustice on 06 May 2013 - 07:21 PM Edited Westpac scenario The Backyard crashed with a Debug Assertion Failed message just as a group of F-14 ran out of gas and crashed into the sea just before getting to their carrier. I have included in the zipped files the last 2 saved games the launcher saved. I also had a CV group AEC just vanish from the screen a while before that. If you wanted to land planes on the carrier you could see it in the Select Group for landing window however it NM went up to 5518 but the remaining fuel on the plane groups did not change and groups could still land on the CV's. However you could see the ships in the group if you placed the unit window over it location. I don't know if the 2 are related. I also included the saved game before and after AEC disappeared. It is the same db as in yesterdays issue but I have included it into the zip file too as well as a screen shot of the fault. If you need any additional info please let me know. Issue-16-Debug-Assertion-Failed-Wespac-Scenario-Crash.pdf wp4-2.0029.zip
×
×
  • Create New...